Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vQRfh-007gyN-0u for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 14:48:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vQRfg-008MHP-0v for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 14:48:04 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vQRff-008MHA-37 for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 14:48:04 +0000 Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vQRfe-002khk-14 for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 14:48:04 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7b80fed1505so6505263b3a.3 for ; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 06:48:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1764686880; x=1765291680; darn=lists.postgresql.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FTMPKNgt2ZvA1t4dLj1uaFQ00twiiKv0Py70ozXTMBQ=; b=MDYB+UStj/lQW1uLmlYrqb/LVuZDj9I0dIb8tyEPntdY+84RUnz8Cl4QXp0EGut0A3 qm1k9BM1ejazUmwfOhsWSH++s+XkwRmV0D+boABY5xreqyHUJGjf8tvi/l6gm5ZQQzE8 4A2YYpBH9FKlwoZCcB+hUhP8Qwx0Od0nCDuZXjaB6U3q3B+jIvpTZLhXXpCj/LJjamPd 6BfKTGuEAAlnwet+gXNO+S/Kr4sipF858xAYgOsmHEwnK4EvnFTF87AKNHhzBYMcx6yf 6uB/Nc18od6ixD2M5DCCxretxdPuOJvd9Q5Z2ntDtjx7niqJFD8dIJzwfrJ2UYEm7SdV xa5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764686880; x=1765291680; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=FTMPKNgt2ZvA1t4dLj1uaFQ00twiiKv0Py70ozXTMBQ=; b=PevC5euZaEThIt35O6WQinrTq7MWltHadNMACKiZ8EC7Osvy87Jz6/okTi6kkc97z2 C0rNO5lSREMIqsprizN4xwwUEqWXJuAWE5WijwZ1f0V13AQKSJhicr8VrdhVo0bkGNdD 2dZpM6KpLIlOBu5HRQBbfZ2hoVpimW00PzNtYPO+vwn1L2RkqzcaFHIHkfX7/qY08tvG noV83B0t2NDLElS2IGu8IgDn74xD+hFqMzKH+vcGktd/SegY5GoXb6pfncP7XVt3B9Yq P3dSDajkqHHOf1ovmphCwb9lPId+rZh83FSun8D6u+t34Et6FEfdN8vayolZ5Wq6G9w6 5+kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzv8qU/ThnJcTCgcuKpOyhsEHWyCldszVjRmuTPcJdYp3Qxyaj7 95/FOuROylcV69Ke2gz5jy5cwHLvN5BEXRco4rcyUA30Cd05lR+3zS8eMNTo6iiBwHxSkvQk3m8 hLLXgskcTXjWyFAajtNrefqVWKAw0dQWrdqJ7om0= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsNITUZ8/M2GlWCon3W+2pJ0yXugEecRVGwE9iYVdvrLvfwk0lBio5WuKKPfTB 9oRCvClkJ4ORiELOAhp59/oDhJPo6DiH0/LFWe1GzO/2jerElx5ue2IIGASi6/XhGRlPPwNMRlj Q6zAzKXtsAJQTkyvN+xYRgOZQsLU0oPPInnLVG56Ey9AYhUHusobx8ijBz2/ZB/J4WFrKGpGsn5 f0jGJJOQ4batLjBKf6+o7riQd7bLY+9rSFqz6fBEWEK1HePlLYnVlImKQRpanWNIqSq8jga2w4Q wryKnF7GtpiAKDthz5hqa+XUpogJmV2UxKWWPvKfVVQWblMecbRZN1NVbH2O7xM1BpOXz0SEA5r CsEf/FzvsGJ3Ohvm82aenLasFQZZTx6qtl7ZjbwGA1gJ9JcI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH4LMMhb4l1bwGGJvHU8yFyOympo6N5HAtN+LhhBSAaF1TixQyL5eET3FBWGuxeHJj2sJiRbW34B2ENZdeYH5U= X-Received: by 2002:a05:7022:a8c:b0:119:e56b:958c with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-11c9d7153d8mr26897570c88.17.1764686879765; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 06:47:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Colin 't Hart" Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 15:47:48 +0100 X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_bny4H4BV9iW05SOW9RFY5QbgduBny7X7ReF1MvzCuvcchxKYL9uUxSdgEA Message-ID: Subject: wdavdaemon / Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Linux and slow Postgres recovery? To: PostgreSQL General Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009bb7b90644f92e21" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --0000000000009bb7b90644f92e21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, One of my clients has Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Linux installed on their Postgres servers. I was testing a database restore from pgBackRest. The restore itself seemed to complete in a reasonable amount of time, but then the Postgres recovery started and it was extremely slow to retrieve and apply the WAL files. I noticed wdavdaemon taking most of the CPU, and Postgres getting very little. I wonder if anyone here has any experience with configuring exclusions so that the WAL files can be processed faster? AND Any advice on what to communicate with their IT department about using this on their database servers? I've never encountered it on Linux before... Thanks, Colin --0000000000009bb7b90644f92e21 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

One of my clients has=C2= =A0Microsoft Defender for Endpoint on Linux=C2=A0installed on their Postgre= s servers.

I was testing a database restore from p= gBackRest. The restore itself seemed=C2=A0to complete in a reasonable amoun= t of time, but then the Postgres recovery started and it was extremely slow= to retrieve and apply the WAL files.

I noticed wd= avdaemon taking most of the CPU, and Postgres getting very little.

I wonder if anyone here has any experience with configurin= g exclusions so that the WAL files can be processed faster?

<= /div>
AND

Any advice on what=C2=A0to communica= te with their IT department about using this on their database servers? I&#= 39;ve never encountered it on Linux before...

Than= ks,

Colin
--0000000000009bb7b90644f92e21--