On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:50 AM Zwettler Markus (OIZ) < markus.zwett...@zuerich.ch> wrote:
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > > Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Dezember 2019 02:43 > > An: Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <markus.zwett...@zuerich.ch> > > Cc: Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>; > pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org > > Betreff: Re: archiving question > > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:04:55PM +0000, Zwettler Markus (OIZ) wrote: > > > What do you mean hear? > > > > > > Afaik, Postgres runs the archive_command per log, means log by log by > log. > > > > > > How should we parallelize this? > > > > You can, in theory, skip the archiving for a couple of segments and then > do the > > operation at once without the need to patch Postgres. > > -- > > Michael > > > Sorry, I am still confused. > > Do you mean I should move (mv * /backup_dir) the whole pg_xlog directory > away and move it back (mv /backup_dir/* /pg_xlog) in case of recovery? > > No, *absolutely* not. What you can do is have archive_command copy things one by one to a local directory (still sequentially), and then you can have a separate process that sends these to the archive -- and *this* process can be parallelized. //Magnus
