Greetings, * Tomas Vondra (tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > On 11/13/20 3:20 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > > I'm not really sure what to do about achive restore scripts that > > block. That seems to be fundamentally incompatible with what I'm > > doing here. > > IMHO we can't do much about that, except for documenting it - if the > prefetch can't work because of blocking restore script, someone has to > fix/improve the script. No way around that, I'm afraid.
I'm a bit confused about what the issue here is- is the concern that a restore_command is specified that isn't allowed to run concurrently but this patch is intending to run more than one concurrently..? There's another patch that I was looking at for doing pre-fetching of WAL segments, so if this is also doing that we should figure out which patch we want.. I don't know that it's needed, but it feels likely that we could provide a better result if we consider making changes to the restore_command API (eg: have a way to say "please fetch this many segments ahead, and you can put them in this directory with these filenames" or something). I would think we'd be able to continue supporting the existing API and accept that it might not be as performant. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
