Re: archiving question

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:50 AM Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <
Markus(dot)Zwettler(at)zuerich(dot)ch> wrote:

> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Dezember 2019 02:43
> > An: Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <Markus(dot)Zwettler(at)zuerich(dot)ch>
> > Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>;
> pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
> > Betreff: Re: archiving question
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:04:55PM +0000, Zwettler Markus (OIZ) wrote:
> > > What do you mean hear?
> > >
> > > Afaik, Postgres runs the archive_command per log, means log by log by
> log.
> > >
> > > How should we parallelize this?
> >
> > You can, in theory, skip the archiving for a couple of segments and then
> do the
> > operation at once without the need to patch Postgres.
> > --
> > Michael
>
>
> Sorry, I am still confused.
>
> Do you mean I should move (mv * /backup_dir) the whole pg_xlog directory
> away and move it back (mv /backup_dir/* /pg_xlog) in case of recovery?
>
>
No, *absolutely* not.

What you can do is have archive_command copy things one by one to a local
directory (still sequentially), and then you can have a separate process
that sends these to the archive -- and *this* process can be parallelized.

//Magnus