Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 08:57:59 -0800
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
	Fujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org>,
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15
Message-ID: <20230216165759.GA2068561@nathanxps13>
References: <20230208174350.GB451849@nathanxps13>
 <CA+TgmobY5ALQE4U2q32YohLbJfze8CDBZ3rs2x2+ccAa+Pqw6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230208222554.GB546776@nathanxps13>
 <Y+Q2qCecB8zcqF9S@paquier.xyz>
 <20230209002413.GA603595@nathanxps13>
 <CA+TgmobE6rRs-tMArr733y9VucgNA5Nd9_qYgEVWjJDwHBwP-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3907196.1675957889@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoY6xxDdZ1YJjMb27Ei7qgFcbu=__WtDX_cOd3GQ5uvxWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230209172308.GA605342@nathanxps13>
 <CA+TgmoYeiHezg1yHy9Zk7rRAigD5q87fh2rOx19KBOMcTdgmMw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYeiHezg1yHy9Zk7rRAigD5q87fh2rOx19KBOMcTdgmMw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230216165759.GA2068561%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 03:08:14PM +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 10:53 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been thinking about this, actually.  I'm wondering if we could provide
>> a list of files to the archiving callback (configurable via a variable in
>> ArchiveModuleState), and then have the callback return a list of files that
>> are archived.  (Or maybe we just put the list of files that need archiving
>> in ArchiveModuleState.)  The returned list could include files that were
>> sent to the callback previously.  The archive module would be responsible
>> for creating background worker(s) (if desired), dispatching files
>> to-be-archived to its background worker(s), and gathering the list of
>> archived files to return.
> 
> Hmm. So in this design, the archiver doesn't really do the archiving
> any more, because the interface makes that impossible. It has to use a
> separate background worker process for that, full stop.
> 
> I don't think that's a good design. It's fine if some people want to
> implement it that way, but it shouldn't be forced by the interface.

I don't think it would force you to use a background worker, but if you
wanted to, the tools would be available.  At least, that is the intent.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com