On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 11:12:37PM +0500, Andrey M. Borodin wrote: > In my observation restore from archive is many orders of magnitude > faster than streaming replication. Advanced archive tools employ > compression (x6 to speed), download parallelism (x4), are not > constrained be primary's network limits (x3) and disk limits, do not > depend on complicated FEBE protocol, etc.
This is a fair argument in terms of flexibility of what can be achieved on a file-basis, yes, because you are not bottlenecked by the existing replication protocol and can request them ahead of time if necessary and can decide what you want within a single restore_command or archive_command (or module for the latter). It may be relevant to think in terms of what could be done at protocol level to retrieve batches of WAL segments so as the backend has a better control on how each segment is handled in a batch, or provide better in-core tools to achieve that with the existing two command GUCs for restore and archiving? Nathan has also proposed a couple of months ago restore modules, because relying on commands can be very fancy in terms of error handling. And we already have the archive module part. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
