Horton

Re: remove more archiving overhead

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2022-07-26T07:26:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 

On 2022/07/09 2:18, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> 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.

Yes. But some users might want to use basic_archive without any changes.
For them, how about documenting how basic_archive works in basic_archive docs?
I'm just thinking that it's worth exposing the information commented on
the top of basic_archive.c.

Anyway, since the patches look good to me, I pushed them. Thanks a lot!
If necessary, we can keep improving the docs later.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

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.