|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Speed up the removal of WAL files|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:50:03AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz]
>> Hm. durable_xx should remain a sane operation as an isolated call as you
>> still get the same problem if a crash happens before flushing the parent...
>> Fujii-san idea also has value to speed up the end of recovery but this costs
>> as well in extra recycling operations post promotion. If the checkpoint
>> was to happen a the end of recovery then that would be more logic, but we
>> don't for performance reasons. Let's continue to discuss on this thread.
>> If you have any patch to offer, let's also look at them.
>> Anyway, as things are pretty much idle on this thread for a couple of days
>> and that we are still discussing potential ideas, I think that this entry
>> should be marked as returned with feedback. Thoughts?
> OK, I moved this to the next CF. Thank you for your cooperation.
The patch is still roughly with this status, so I am marking it as
returned with feedback.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2018-09-30 13:01:54||Re: Sync ECPG scanner with core|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2018-09-30 12:51:30||Re: Recovery performance of DROP DATABASE with many tablespaces|