Skip to content

Conversation

darora
Copy link
Contributor

@darora darora commented Apr 1, 2025

The reason for not shipping it originally was to avoid any possibility
of the server starting up off a datadir on ephemeral storage.

The initdb process itself is decently heavy though. We can tread the
middle ground between the two by shipping the datadir at a secondary
location, which the server never gets configured to run off. This
datadir can be moved to the appropriate place on persistent storage
prior to server startup. The simpler operation of copying the files
over should be faster than the initdb routine.

@darora darora requested review from a team as code owners April 1, 2025 01:45
The reason for not shipping it originally was to avoid any possibility
of the server starting up off a datadir on ephemeral storage.

The initdb process itself is decently heavy though. We can tread the
middle ground between the two by shipping the datadir at a secondary
location, which the server never gets configured to run off. This
datadir can be moved to the appropriate place on persistent storage
prior to server startup. The simpler operation of copying the files
over should be faster than the initdb routine.
@darora darora merged commit afc507c into develop Apr 1, 2025
12 of 14 checks passed
@darora darora deleted the da/initdb branch April 1, 2025 02:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants