Re: Concurrency issue in pg_rewind
От | Andrey M. Borodin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Concurrency issue in pg_rewind |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F93A023-6129-4B4A-8F28-C844E1B8CA9A@yandex-team.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Concurrency issue in pg_rewind (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Concurrency issue in pg_rewind
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> 18 сент. 2020 г., в 11:59, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> написал(а): > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:31:26AM +0500, Andrey M. Borodin wrote: >> This is whole point of having prefetch. restore_command just links >> file from the same partition. > > If this stuff is willing to do so, you may have your reasons, but even > if you wish to locate both pg_wal/ and the prefetch path in the same > partition, I don't get why it is necessary to have the prefetch path > included directly in pg_wal? You could just use different paths for > both. Say, with a base partition at /my/path/, you can just have > /my/path/pg_wal/ that the Postgres backend links to, and > /my/path/wal-g/prefetch/ for the secondary path. This complexity doesn't seem necessary to me. What we gain? Prefetched WAL is WAL per se. Makes sense to keep it in pg_waltree by default. I will implement possibility to move cache out of pg_wal (similar functionality is implemented in pgBackRest). But it seemsuseless to me: user can configure WAL prefetch to be less performant, without any benefits. Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: