On 12/1/21, 2:56 PM, "Andres Freund" <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2021-12-01 20:24:25 +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> I realize adding a new maintenance worker might be a bit heavy-handed, >> but I think it would be nice to have somewhere to offload tasks that >> really shouldn't impact startup and checkpointing. I imagine such a >> process would come in handy down the road, too. WDYT? > > -1. I think the overhead of an additional worker is disproportional here. And > there's simplicity benefits in having a predictable cleanup interlock as well.
Another idea I had was to put some upper limit on how much time is spent on such tasks. For example, a checkpoint would only spend X minutes on CheckPointSnapBuild() before giving up until the next one. I think the main downside of that approach is that it could lead to unbounded growth, so perhaps we would limit (or even skip) such tasks only for end-of-recovery and shutdown checkpoints. Perhaps the startup tasks could be limited in a similar fashion. > I think particularly for the snapshot stuff it'd be better to optimize away > unnecessary snapshot files, rather than making the cleanup more asynchronous. I can look into this. Any pointers would be much appreciated. Nathan
