| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: | 2023-02-18 10:21:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoamQWK3JYkYtf7GPuzh9en2bDPTzw9c3BF+cHZDt0y7AQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:02 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> But there's nothing inherent in that. We know for certain which files we're
> going to archive. And we don't need to work one-by-one. The archiver could
> just start multiple subprocesses at the same time.
But what if it doesn't want to start multiple processes, just
multiplex within a single process?
> What I was trying to point out was that the work a "restorer" process has to
> do is more speculative, because we don't know when we'll promote, whether
> we'll follow a timeline increase, whether the to-be-restored WAL already
> exists. That's solvable, but a bunch of the relevant work ought to be solved
> in core core code, instead of just in archive modules.
Yep, I can see that there are some things to figure out there, and I
agree that they should be figured out in the core code.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-02-18 10:42:52 | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-02-18 08:49:53 | Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15 |