From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <Jakub(dot)Wartak(at)tomtom(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |
Date: | 2022-03-08 13:48:54 |
Message-ID: | 1392587c-c56a-2816-e3cf-4202a216a3be@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/8/22 06:15, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 5:29 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> https://github.com/macdice/postgres/tree/recovery-prefetch-ii
>
> Here's a rebase. This mostly involved moving hunks over to the new
> xlogrecovery.c file. One thing that seemed a little strange to me
> with the new layout is that xlogreader is now a global variable. I
> followed that pattern and made xlogprefetcher a global variable too,
> for now.
>
> There is one functional change: now I block readahead at records that
> might change the timeline ID. This removes the need to think about
> scenarios where "replay TLI" and "read TLI" might differ. I don't
> know of a concrete problem in that area with the previous version, but
> the recent introduction of the variable(s) "replayTLI" and associated
> comments in master made me realise I hadn't analysed the hazards here
> enough. Since timelines are tricky things and timeline changes are
> extremely infrequent, it seemed better to simplify matters by putting
> up a big road block there.
>
> I'm now starting to think about committing this soon.
+1. I don't have the capacity/hardware to do more testing at the moment,
but all of this looks reasonable.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2022-03-08 14:38:00 | Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup |
Previous Message | Andy Fan | 2022-03-08 13:44:37 | Re: Condition pushdown: why (=) is pushed down into join, but BETWEEN or >= is not? |