| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan A&PS Delivery)" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_stat_progress_basebackup - progress reporting for pg_basebackup, in the server side |
| Date: | 2020-03-23 07:06:46 |
| Message-ID: | 7b5b8d27-7500-772c-9fe5-384f51de38b0@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/03/20 3:39, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-03-19 17:21:38 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Pushed! Thanks!
>
> FWIW, I'm a bit doubtful that incuring the overhead of this by default
> on everybody is a nice thing. On filesystems with high latency and with
> a lot of small relations the overhead of stating a lot of files can be
> almost as high as the actual base backup.
Yeah, so if we receive lots of complaints like that during beta and
RC phases, we should consider to change the default behavior.
Also maybe I should measure how long the estimation takes on the env
where, for example, ten thousand tables (i.e., files) exist, in order to
whether the default behavior is really time-consuming or not?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atsushi Torikoshi | 2020-03-23 07:28:04 | Re: type of some table storage params on doc |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-03-23 06:56:20 | Re: Wait event that should be reported while waiting for WAL archiving to finish |