Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15
Date: 2023-02-06 00:07:50
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2023-02-05 15:57:47 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > For the segment files, we'd likely need a parameter to indicate whether
> > the restore is random or not.
> Wouldn't this approach still require each module to handle restoring ahead
> of time?

Yes, to some degree at least. I was just describing a few pretty obvious

The core code can make that a lot easier though. The problem of where to
store such files can be provided by core code (presumably a separate
directory). A GUC for aggressiveness can be provided. Etc.

> I agree that the shell overhead isn't the main performance issue,
> but it's unclear to me how much of this should be baked into
> PostgreSQL.

I don't know fully either. But just reimplementing all of it in
different modules doesn't seem like a sane approach either. A lot of it
is policy that we need to solve once, centrally.

> I mean, we could introduce a GUC that tells us how far ahead to
> restore and have a background worker (or multiple background workers)
> asynchronously pull files into a staging directory via the callbacks.
> Is that the sort of scope you are envisioning?

Closer, at least.


Andres Freund

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-02-06 00:35:16 Re: Add progress reporting to pg_verifybackup
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-02-05 23:57:47 Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15