Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sravan Kumar <sravanvcybage(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"
Date: 2023-01-20 19:39:56
Message-ID: 20230120193956.GA2831@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 11:35:33AM +0530, Sravan Kumar wrote:
> I have added the thread to the commitfest:
> Did you get a chance to review the patch? Please let me know if you
> need anything from my end.

This seems like worthwhile simplification to me. Ultimately, your patch
shouldn't result in any sort of signficant behavior change, and I don't see
any reason to further complicate the timeout calculation. The copy loop
will run any time the archiver's latch is set, and it'll wait up to 60
seconds otherwise. As discussed upthread, it might be possible to remove
the timeout completely, but that probably deserves its own thread.

I noticed that time.h is no longer needed by the archiver, so I removed
that and fixed an indentation nitpick in the attached v2. I'm going to set
the commitfest entry to ready-for-committer shortly after sending this

Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-simplify-wait-loop-in-the-archiver.patch text/x-diff 1.9 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2023-01-20 20:01:55 Re: Change xl_hash_vacuum_one_page.ntuples from int to uint16
Previous Message Matthias van de Meent 2023-01-20 19:37:58 Re: Improving btree performance through specializing by key shape, take 2