Greetings,
* Nathan Bossart (nathandbossart@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:00:31AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > TBH, I think the current archive and restore module APIs aren't useful. I
> > think it was a mistake to add archive modules without having demonstrated that
> > one can do something useful with them that the restore_command didn't already
> > do. If anything, archive modules have made it harder to improve archiving
> > performance via concurrency.
>
> I must respectfully disagree that this work is useless. Besides the
> performance and security benefits of not shelling out for every WAL file,
> I've found it very useful to be able to use the standard module framework
> to develop archive modules. It's relatively easy to make use of GUCs,
> background workers, compression, etc. Of course, there is room for
> improvement in areas like concurrency support as you rightly point out, but
> I don't think that makes the current state worthless.
Would be great to see these archive modules, perhaps it would help show
how this functionality is useful and what could be done in core to make
things easier for the archive module.
Thanks,
Stephen