> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:50 AM Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <mailto:Markus.Zwettler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Michael Paquier <mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Dezember 2019 02:43 >> An: Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <mailto:Markus.Zwettler@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Stephen Frost <mailto:sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx>; mailto: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 That has been my initial question. Is there a way to tune this sequential archive_command log by log copy in case I have tons of logs within the pg_xlog directory? Markus
