Greetings, * Bossart, Nathan (bossa...@amazon.com) wrote: > On 10/4/21, 7:21 PM, "Stephen Frost" <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > This has something we've contemplated quite a bit and the last thing > > that I'd want to have is a requirement to configure a whole bunch of > > additional parameters to enable this. Why do we need to have some many > > new GUCs? I would have thought we'd probably be able to get away with > > just having the appropriate hooks and then telling folks to load the > > extension in shared_preload_libraries.. > > That would certainly simplify my patch quite a bit. I'll do it this > way in the next revision. > > > As for the hooks themselves, I'd certainly hope that they'd be designed > > to handle batches of WAL rather than individual ones as that's long been > > one of the main issues with the existing archive command approach. I > > appreciate that maybe that's less of an issue with a shared library but > > it's still something to consider. > > Will do. This seems like it should be easier with the hook because we > can provide a way to return which files were successfully archived.
It's also been discussed, at least around the water cooler (as it were in pandemic times- aka our internal slack channels..) that the existing archive command might be reimplemented as an extension using these. Not sure if that's really necessary but it was a thought. In any case, thanks for working on this! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
