I've just realized I forgot to CC the active participants on the last thread to this one, so I've attempted to do that now. I didn't intentionally leave anyone out, but I'm sorry if I missed someone.
On 11/1/21, 10:24 PM, "Michael Paquier" <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > It seems to me that this patch is not moving into the right direction > implementation-wise (I have read the arguments about > backward-compatibility that led to the introduction of archive_library > and its shell mode), for what looks like a duplicate of > shared_preload_libraries but for an extra code path dedicated to the > archiver, where we could just have a hook instead? We have been > talking for some time now to make the archiver process more > bgworker-ish, so as we finish with something closer to what the > logical replication launcher is. Hm. It sounds like you want something more like what was discussed earlier in the other thread [0]. This approach would basically just add a hook and call it a day. My patch for this approach [1] moved the shell archive logic to a test module, but the general consensus seems to be that we'd need to have it be present in core (and the default). Nathan [0] https://postgr.es/m/8B7BF404-29D4-4662-A2DF-1AC4C98463EB%40amazon.com [1] https://postgr.es/m/attachment/127385/v2-0001-Replace-archive_command-with-a-hook.patch
