| From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: archive modules |
| Date: | 2021-11-10 18:52:04 |
| Message-ID: | C4CC3183-2575-422C-97E4-789D56EA6A5D@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/10/21, 10:42 AM, "David Steele" <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> OK, I haven't had to go over the patch in detail so I didn't realize the
> module was not backwards compatible. I'll have a closer look soon.
It's backward-compatible in the sense that you'd be able to switch
archive_library to "shell" to continue using archive_command, but
archive_command is otherwise unused. The proposed patch sets
archive_library to "shell" by default.
> Honestly, I'm not sure to what extent it makes sense to delve into these
> problems for an archiver that basically just copies to another
> directory. This is a not a very realistic solution for the common
> storage requirements we are seeing these days.
Agreed.
> I'll have more to say once I've had a closer look, but in general I
> agree with what you have said here. Keeping it in test for now is likely
> to be the best approach.
Looking forward to your feedback.
Nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-10 18:59:43 | Re: Pre-allocating WAL files |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2021-11-10 18:42:05 | Re: archive modules |