| From: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: O(n) tasks cause lengthy startups and checkpoints |
| Date: | 2022-01-14 11:41:46 |
| Message-ID: | CACG=ezagGrdsdKpqjUpF34f6PkEHUjqVeUmffQsFsye7h=QeEg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The code seems to be in good condition. All the tests are running ok with
no errors.
I like the whole idea of shifting additional checkpointer jobs as much
as possible to another worker. In my view, it is more appropriate to call
this worker "bg cleaner" or "bg file cleaner" or smth.
It could be useful for systems with high load, which may deal with deleting
many files at once, but I'm not sure about "small" installations. Extra bg
worker need more resources to do occasional deletion of small amounts of
files. I really do not know how to do it better, maybe to have two
different code paths switched by GUC?
Should we also think about adding WAL preallocation into custodian worker
from the patch "Pre-alocationg WAL files" [1] ?
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20201225200953(dot)jjkrytlrzojbndh5(at)alap3(dot)anarazel(dot)de
--
Best regards,
Maxim Orlov.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-01-14 11:51:41 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-01-14 11:39:48 | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |