Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Date: 2020-11-13 10:45:51
Message-ID: 5437ce5b-d305-bd85-23ec-ddb15735d93f@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/13/20 3:20 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I'm not really sure what to do about achive restore scripts that
> block. That seems to be fundamentally incompatible with what I'm
> doing here.
>

IMHO we can't do much about that, except for documenting it - if the
prefetch can't work because of blocking restore script, someone has to
fix/improve the script. No way around that, I'm afraid.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Georgios 2020-11-13 10:47:35 Re: Supporting = operator in gin/gist_trgm_ops
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-11-13 10:45:01 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions