Subject: Re: Recovery will take 10 hours
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Brendan Duddridge <brendan@clickspace.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <F823FC8E-70C4-41D0-A812-F2C7E2ECFF1E@clickspace.com>
References: <85A15B2E-F59C-4FEF-82D4-61F48ABDCDE5@clickspace.com>
	<1145808368.3112.222.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<F823FC8E-70C4-41D0-A812-F2C7E2ECFF1E@clickspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:27:31 +0100
Message-Id: <1145899652.3112.326.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 22:46 -0600, Brendan Duddridge wrote:

> So how do you overlap the restore process with the retrieving of files?

The restore command can be *anything*. You just write a script...

> Our restore command is:
> 
> restore_command = 'gunzip </wal_archive/%f.gz>%p'
> 
> If I change it to:
> 
> restore_command = 'gunzip </wal_archive/%f.gz>%p &'
> 
> to execute the restore command in the background, will that do the  
> trick?

No, but you can execute a shell script that does use & internally.

> But I don't think the real problem was the retrieval of the files. It  
> only
> took maybe 1/2 a second to retrieve the file, but often took anywhere  
> from
> 5 to 30 seconds to process the file. More so on the longer end of the  
> scale.

Sorry, thought you meant the decompression time.

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com/