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
