Re: Speed up the removal of WAL files

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
Date: 2018-09-30 12:53:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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