On 12/1/21, 6:48 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy" <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for the overall idea of making the checkpoint faster. In fact, we > here at our team have been thinking about this problem for a while. If > there are a lot of files that checkpoint has to loop over and remove, > IMO, that task can be delegated to someone else (maybe a background > worker called background cleaner or bg cleaner, of course, we can have > a GUC to enable or disable it). The checkpoint can just write some
Right. IMO it isn't optimal to have critical things like startup and checkpointing depend on somewhat-unrelated tasks. I understand the desire to avoid adding additional processes, and maybe it is a bigger hammer than what is necessary to reduce the impact, but it seemed like a natural solution for this problem. That being said, I'm all for exploring other ways to handle this. > Another idea could be to parallelize the checkpoint i.e. IIUC, the > tasks that checkpoint do in CheckPointGuts are independent and if we > have some counters like (how many snapshot/mapping files that the > server generated) Could you elaborate on this? Is your idea that the checkpointer would create worker processes like autovacuum does? Nathan
