Re: Reduce the time required for a database recovery from archive.

On 09.11.2020 19:31, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Dmitry Shulga (d.shulga@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
>>> On 19 Oct 2020, at 23:25, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> process finishes a WAL file but then just sit around doing nothing while
>>> waiting for the applying process to finish another segment.
>> I believe that for typical set-up the parameter max_restore_command_workers would have value 2 or 3 in order to
supply
>> a delivered WAL file on time just before it be started processing.
>>
>> This use case is for environment where time required for delivering WAL file from archive is greater  than time
requiredfor applying records contained in the WAL file.
 
>> If time required for WAL file delivering lesser than than time required for handling records contained in it then
max_restore_command_workersshouldn't be specified at all
 
> That's certainly not correct at all- the two aren't really all that
> related, because any time spent waiting for a WAL file to be delivered
> is time that the applying process *could* be working to apply WAL
> instead of waiting.  At a minimum, I'd expect us to want to have, by
> default, at least one worker process running out in front of the
> applying process to hopefully eliminate most, if not all, time where the
> applying process is waiting for a WAL to show up.  In cases where the
> applying process is faster than a single fetching process, a user might
> want to have two or more restore workers, though ultimately I still
> contend that what they really want is as many workers as needed to make
> sure that the applying process doesn't ever need to wait- up to some
> limit based on the amount of space that's available.
>
> And back to the configuration side of this- have you considered the
> challenge that a user who is using very large WAL files might run
> into with the proposed approach that doesn't allow them to control the
> amount of space used?  If I'm using 1G WAL files, then I need to have
> 16G available to have *any* pre-fetching done with this proposed
> approach, right?  That doesn't seem great.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen

Status update for a commitfest entry.

The commitfest is closed now. As this entry has been Waiting on Author 
for a while, I've marked it as returned with feedback. Dmitry, feel free 
to resubmit an updated version to a future commitfest.

-- 
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company