Re: remove more archiving overhead

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: remove more archiving overhead
Date: 2022-07-26 07:26:23
Message-ID: da82c340-ebef-c6e4-60a8-6292b7fe206d@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2022/07/09 2:18, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 01:02:51PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
>> I think I wrote this before I'd had enough coffee. "fully persisted to
>> storage" can mean many things depending on the storage (Posix, CIFS, S3,
>> etc.) so I think this is fine. The basic_archive module is there for people
>> who would like implementation details for Posix.

Yes. But some users might want to use basic_archive without any changes.
For them, how about documenting how basic_archive works in basic_archive docs?
I'm just thinking that it's worth exposing the information commented on
the top of basic_archive.c.

Anyway, since the patches look good to me, I pushed them. Thanks a lot!
If necessary, we can keep improving the docs later.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2022-07-26 07:39:25 Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2022-07-26 07:25:27 Re: Refactoring postgres_fdw/connection.c