On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:29 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:00:31AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > TBH, I think the current archive and restore module APIs aren't useful. I > > think it was a mistake to add archive modules without having demonstrated > > that > > one can do something useful with them that the restore_command didn't > > already > > do. If anything, archive modules have made it harder to improve archiving > > performance via concurrency. > > I must respectfully disagree that this work is useless. Besides the > performance and security benefits of not shelling out for every WAL file, > I've found it very useful to be able to use the standard module framework > to develop archive modules. It's relatively easy to make use of GUCs, > background workers, compression, etc. Of course, there is room for > improvement in areas like concurrency support as you rightly point out, but > I don't think that makes the current state worthless.
I also disagree with Andres. The status quo ante was that we did not provide any way of doing archiving correctly even to a directory on the local machine. We could only recommend silly things like 'cp' that are incorrect in multiple ways. basic_archive isn't the most wonderful thing ever, and its deficiencies are more obvious to me now than they were when I committed it. But it's better than recommending a shell command that doesn't even work. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
