Re: Recovery will take 10 hours

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Brendan Duddridge <brendan(at)clickspace(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery will take 10 hours
Date: 2006-04-24 17:27:31
Message-ID: 1145899652.3112.326.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 22:46 -0600, Brendan Duddridge wrote:

> So how do you overlap the restore process with the retrieving of files?

The restore command can be *anything*. You just write a script...

> Our restore command is:
>
> restore_command = 'gunzip </wal_archive/%f.gz>%p'
>
> If I change it to:
>
> restore_command = 'gunzip </wal_archive/%f.gz>%p &'
>
> to execute the restore command in the background, will that do the
> trick?

No, but you can execute a shell script that does use & internally.

> But I don't think the real problem was the retrieval of the files. It
> only
> took maybe 1/2 a second to retrieve the file, but often took anywhere
> from
> 5 to 30 seconds to process the file. More so on the longer end of the
> scale.

Sorry, thought you meant the decompression time.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2006-04-24 19:00:54 Re: serious problems with vacuuming databases
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-04-24 17:09:15 Re: Slow deletes in 8.1 when FKs are involved