On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:50 AM Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <Markus.Zwettler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael Paquier <michael@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Dezember 2019 02:43
> An: Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <Markus.Zwettler@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx>; pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
