From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-04-08 12:27:39 |
Message-ID: | 226b5950-7404-a51d-8dc7-53895b363a38@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/8/20 8:12 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> Ok, so the following parts of this work have been committed:
>
> b09ff536: Simplify the effective_io_concurrency setting.
> fc34b0d9: Introduce a maintenance_io_concurrency setting.
> 3985b600: Support PrefetchBuffer() in recovery.
> d140f2f3: Rationalize GetWalRcv{Write,Flush}RecPtr().
>
> However, I didn't want to push the main patch into the tree at
> (literally) the last minute after doing such much work on it in the
> last few days, without more review from recovery code experts and some
> independent testing.
I definitely think that was the right call.
> Judging by the comments made in this thread and
> elsewhere, I think the feature is in demand so I hope there is a way
> we could get it into 13 in the next couple of days, but I totally
> accept the release management team's prerogative on that.
That's up to the RMT, of course, but we did already have an extra week.
Might be best to just get this in at the beginning of the PG14 cycle.
FWIW, I do think the feature is really valuable.
Looks like you'll need to rebase, so I'll move this to the next CF in
WoA state.
Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-08 12:29:07 | Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-04-08 12:25:59 | Re: [bug] Wrong bool value parameter |