AW: archiving question

> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:50 AM Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <mailto:Markus(dot)Zwettler(at)zuerich(dot)ch> wrote:
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Michael Paquier <mailto:michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Dezember 2019 02:43
>> An: Zwettler Markus (OIZ) <mailto:Markus(dot)Zwettler(at)zuerich(dot)ch>
>> Cc: Stephen Frost <mailto:sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>; mailto:pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
>> Betreff: Re: archiving question
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 03:04:55PM +0000, Zwettler Markus (OIZ) wrote:
>> > What do you mean hear?
>> >
>> > Afaik, Postgres runs the archive_command per log, means log by log by log.
>> >
>> > How should we parallelize this?
>>
>> You can, in theory, skip the archiving for a couple of segments and then do the
>> operation at once without the need to patch Postgres.
>> --
>> Michael
>
>
>Sorry, I am still confused.
>
>Do you mean I should move (mv * /backup_dir) the whole pg_xlog directory away and move it back (mv /backup_dir/* /pg_xlog) in case of recovery?
>
>No, *absolutely* not.
>
>What you can do is have archive_command copy things one by one to a local directory (still sequentially), and then you can have a separate process that sends these to the archive -- and *this* process can be parallelized. 
>
>//Magnus
 

That has been my initial question.

Is there a way to tune this sequential archive_command log by log copy in case I have tons of logs within the pg_xlog directory?

Markus