From: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Concurrency issue in pg_rewind |
Date: | 2020-09-18 12:33:26 |
Message-ID: | 4F93A023-6129-4B4A-8F28-C844E1B8CA9A@yandex-team.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 18 сент. 2020 г., в 11:59, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> написал(а):
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:31:26AM +0500, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
>> This is whole point of having prefetch. restore_command just links
>> file from the same partition.
>
> If this stuff is willing to do so, you may have your reasons, but even
> if you wish to locate both pg_wal/ and the prefetch path in the same
> partition, I don't get why it is necessary to have the prefetch path
> included directly in pg_wal? You could just use different paths for
> both. Say, with a base partition at /my/path/, you can just have
> /my/path/pg_wal/ that the Postgres backend links to, and
> /my/path/wal-g/prefetch/ for the secondary path.
This complexity doesn't seem necessary to me. What we gain? Prefetched WAL is WAL per se. Makes sense to keep it in pg_wal tree by default.
I will implement possibility to move cache out of pg_wal (similar functionality is implemented in pgBackRest). But it seems useless to me: user can configure WAL prefetch to be less performant, without any benefits.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ajin Cherian | 2020-09-18 12:49:46 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Previous Message | Ajin Cherian | 2020-09-18 12:31:19 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |