On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 4:42 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > I was going to say that perhaps we can avoid repeated scans by having a > bitmap of future files that were found by a scan; so if we need to do > one scan, we keep track of the presence of the next (say) 64 files in > our timeline, and then we only have to do another scan when we need to > archive a file that wasn't present the last time we scanned.
There are two different proposed patches on this thread. One of them works exactly that way, and the other one tries to optimize by assuming that if we just optimized WAL file N, we likely will next want to archive WAL file N+1. It's been hard to decide which way is better. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
