Horton

Re: remove more archiving overhead

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, robertmhaas@gmail.com, masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2022-07-08T17:18:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 01:02:51PM -0400, David Steele wrote:
> I think I wrote this before I'd had enough coffee. "fully persisted to
> storage" can mean many things depending on the storage (Posix, CIFS, S3,
> etc.) so I think this is fine. The basic_archive module is there for people
> who would like implementation details for Posix.

Perhaps this section should warn against reading without sufficient
caffeination.  :)

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Commits

  1. Be more prescriptive in new doc about re-archiving of same WAL file.

  2. doc: Add note about re-archiving of same WAL files in docs.

  3. Reduce overhead of renaming archive status files.