On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:28 PM Nathan Bossart
<nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmm. So in this design, the archiver doesn't really do the archiving
> > any more, because the interface makes that impossible. It has to use a
> > separate background worker process for that, full stop.
> >
> > I don't think that's a good design. It's fine if some people want to
> > implement it that way, but it shouldn't be forced by the interface.
>
> I don't think it would force you to use a background worker, but if you
> wanted to, the tools would be available. At least, that is the intent.
I'm 100% amenable to somebody demonstrating how that is super easy,
barely an inconvenience. But I think we would need to see some code
showing at least what the API is going to look like, and ideally a
sample implementation, in order for me to be convinced of that. What I
suspect is that if somebody tries to do that they are going to find
that the core API has to be quite opinionated about how the archive
module has to do things, which I think is not what we want. But if
that turns out to be false, cool!
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com