Re: Background writer and checkpointer in crash recovery
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Background writer and checkpointer in crash recovery |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGKiBnK9cB_NAxBOHJ7okw9p46F7ZmBP2FjpdTf5RJxS-g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Background writer and checkpointer in crash recovery (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Background writer and checkpointer in crash recovery
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 2:16 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 4:42 AM Aleksander Alekseev > <aleksander@timescale.com> wrote: > > v2-0001 and v2-0002 look fine, but I don't like much the idea of introducing a new GUC in v2-0003. It's for very specificneeds, which most of the users, I believe, don't care about. I suggest dealing with v2-0001 and v2-0002 first andthen maybe submit and discuss v2-0003 as a separate CF entry. Thanks. > Thanks for bumping this thread; I had forgotten all about this effort, > but having just spent a bunch of time struggling with the thicket of > cases in StartupXLOG(), I'm now feeling highly motivated to make some > more progress in simplifying things over there. I am still of the > opinion that 0001 is a good idea, and I don't have any suggestions for > how it could be improved, That's good news, and thanks. Yes, clearly there is much more that can be simplified here. > except perhaps that the call to > PublishStartupProcessInformation() could maybe have a one-line > comment. Done. BTW that is temporary, as I'm planning to remove that machinery soon[1]. > Thomas, are you planning to press forward with committing > this soon? If not, do you mind if I do? I pushed 0001. Let me think about 0002, and flesh out 0003 a bit more. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA+hUKGLYRyDaneEwz5Uya_OgFLMx5BgJfkQSD=q9HmwsfRRb-w@mail.gmail.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: