On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:36 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to gauge interest in parallelizing the archiver process.
> [...]
> Based on previous threads I've seen, I believe many in the community
> would like to replace archive_command entirely, but what I'm proposing
> here would build on the existing tools.
Having a new implementation that would remove the archive_command is
probably a better long term solution, but I don't know of anyone
working on that and it's probably gonna take some time. Right now we
have a lot of users that face archiving bottleneck so I think it would
be a good thing to implement parallel archiving, fully compatible with
current archive_command, as a short term solution.