Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:12:33PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> archive_command and so on: we could disable these too. Nathan did some
> work to implement those using dynamic libraries, so it shouldn't be too
> much of a loss; anything that is done with a shell script can also be
> done with a small library. Those libraries can be made safe.
> If there are other ways to invoke shell commands from GUCs, let's add
> the ability to use libraries for those too.

Sorry, I just noticed this message. I recently withdrew my patch set [0]
for using a library instead of shell commands for restore_command,
archive_cleanup_command, and recovery_end_command, as it had sat idle for a
very long time. If/when there's interest, I'd be happy to pick it up
again.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/ZkwLqichtySV5kF3%40nathan-air.lan

--
nathan