Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
| От | Stephen Frost |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAOuzzgrn7iKnFRsB4MHp3UisEQAGgZMbk_ViTN4HV4-Ksq8zCg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 19:17 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 8:16 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> That wasn't my plan, but I admit that the timing was non-ideal. In
> any case, I'll dig into these failures and then consider options.
> More soon.
Yeah, this clearly needs more work. xlogreader.c is difficult to work
with and I think we need to keep trying to improve it, but I made a
bad call here trying to combine this with other refactoring work up
against a deadline and I made some dumb mistakes. I could of course
debug it in-tree, and I know that this has been an anticipated
feature. Personally I think the right thing to do now is to revert it
and re-propose for 15 early in the cycle, supported with some better
testing infrastructure.
I tend to agree with the idea to revert it, perhaps a +0 on that, but if others argue it should be fixed in-place, I wouldn’t complain about it.
I very much encourage the idea of improving testing in this area and would be happy to try and help do so in the 15 cycle.
Thanks,
Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: