On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 04:07:50PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-02-05 15:57:47 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I agree that the shell overhead isn't the main performance issue,
>> but it's unclear to me how much of this should be baked into
>> PostgreSQL.
>
> I don't know fully either. But just reimplementing all of it in
> different modules doesn't seem like a sane approach either. A lot of it
> is policy that we need to solve once, centrally.
>
>> I mean, we could introduce a GUC that tells us how far ahead to
>> restore and have a background worker (or multiple background workers)
>> asynchronously pull files into a staging directory via the callbacks.
>> Is that the sort of scope you are envisioning?
>
> Closer, at least.
Got it. I suspect we'll want to do something similar for archive modules
eventually, too.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com