From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pavel Suderevsky <psuderevsky(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI. |
Date: | 2020-04-07 08:17:32 |
Message-ID: | 20200407081732.GC6655@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:15:00PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I understood the situation and am fine to back-patch that. But I'm not sure
> if it's fair to do that. Maybe we need to hear more opinions about this?
> OTOH, feature freeze for v13 is today, so what about committing the patch
> in v13 at first, and then doing the back-patch after hearing opinions and
> receiving many +1?
I have not looked at the patch so I cannot say much about it, but it
is annoying to fetch segments you are not going to need anyway if you
target recovery with a timeline older than the segments fetched and
this has a cost when you pay for the bandwidth of your environment
with only one archive location. So a backpatch sounds like a good
thing to do even if recovery is not broken per-se, only slower.
Designing a TAP test for that is tricky, but you could look at the
logs of the backend to make sure that only the wanted segments are
fetched with a central archived solution and multiple timelines
involved. And costly it is.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 曾文旌 | 2020-04-07 09:30:03 | [bug] Wrong bool value parameter |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-07 07:49:44 | Re: BUG #16325: Assert failure on partitioning by int for a text value with a collation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-04-07 08:42:01 | Re: pg_stat_statements issue with parallel maintenance (Was Re: WAL usage calculation patch) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-07 08:07:44 | Re: [patch] Fix pg_checksums to allow checking of offline base backup directories |