Re: parallelizing the archiver

From: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2021-10-05 03:31:52
Message-ID: F0DC2149-1A41-4F14-B471-08E4BDD711F7@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/4/21, 8:19 PM, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> It's also been discussed, at least around the water cooler (as it were
> in pandemic times- aka our internal slack channels..) that the existing
> archive command might be reimplemented as an extension using these. Not
> sure if that's really necessary but it was a thought. In any case,
> thanks for working on this!

Interesting. I like the idea of having one code path for everything
instead of branching for the hook and non-hook paths. Thanks for
sharing your thoughts.

Nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2021-10-05 03:55:13 Re: [PATCH] document
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2021-10-05 03:28:46 Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations