On 12/3/21, 5:57 AM, "Bharath Rupireddy" <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 3:01 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > Having a generic background cleaner process (controllable via a few > GUCs), which can delete a bunch of files (snapshot, mapping, old WAL, > temp files etc.) or some other task on behalf of the checkpointer, > seems to be the easiest solution. > > I'm too open for other ideas.
I might hack something together for the separate worker approach, if for no other reason than to make sure I really understand how these functions work. If/when a better idea emerges, we can alter course. Nathan
