| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallelizing the archiver |
| Date: | 2021-09-08 06:38:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_ZrQTk9SGFypt-N-=MjUPeXWs3T1_ijveHP3GzvgoEkjQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:36 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to gauge interest in parallelizing the archiver process.
> [...]
> Based on previous threads I've seen, I believe many in the community
> would like to replace archive_command entirely, but what I'm proposing
> here would build on the existing tools.
Having a new implementation that would remove the archive_command is
probably a better long term solution, but I don't know of anyone
working on that and it's probably gonna take some time. Right now we
have a lot of users that face archiving bottleneck so I think it would
be a good thing to implement parallel archiving, fully compatible with
current archive_command, as a short term solution.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2021-09-08 06:54:01 | Re: PG Docs - CREATE SUBSCRIPTION option list order |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-09-08 06:34:51 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |