Re: parallelizing the archiver

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: parallelizing the archiver
Date: 2021-10-25 17:17:46
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY3JiPrD8j0UCwjPPMBqoSLaxer46DBZEFJbpN+__-+Cg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 1:14 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> IIUC this would mean that archive modules that need to define GUCs or
> register background workers would have to separately define a
> _PG_init() and be loaded via shared_preload_libraries in addition to
> archive_library. That doesn't seem too terrible to me, but it was
> something I was trying to avoid.

Hmm. That doesn't seem like a terrible goal, but I think we should try
to find some way of achieving it that looks tidier than this does.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-10-25 17:18:26 Re: pgsql: Remove unused wait events.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-10-25 17:17:20 Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions