On 11/10/21, 10:42 AM, "David Steele" <david@pgmasters.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