Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2023-02-09 00:24:13
Message-ID: 20230209002413.GA603595@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 08:56:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 02:25:54PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> These are all good points. Perhaps there could be a base archiver
>> implementation that shell_archive uses (and that other modules could use if
>> desired, which might be important for backward compatibility with the
>> existing callbacks). But if you want to do something fancier than
>> archiving sequentially, you could write your own.
>
> Which is basically the kind of things you can already achieve with a
> background worker and a module of your own?

IMO one of the big pieces that's missing is a way to get the next N files
to archive. Right now, you'd have to trawl through archive_status on your
own if you wanted to batch/parallelize. I think one advantage of what
Robert is suggesting is that we could easily provide a supported way to get
the next set of files to archive, and we can asynchronously mark them
"done". Otherwise, each module has to implement this.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-02-09 00:29:35 Re: tests against running server occasionally fail, postgres_fdw & tenk1
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-02-09 00:07:49 Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 vs old branches