On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 01:43:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2021/11/02 3:54, Bossart, Nathan wrote: >> This thread is a continuation of the thread with the subject >> "parallelizing the archiver" [0]. That thread had morphed into an >> effort to allow creating archive modules, so I've created a new one to >> ensure that this topic has the proper visibility. > > What is the main motivation of this patch? I was thinking that > it's for parallelizing WAL archiving. But as far as I read > the patch very briefly, WAL file name is still passed to > the archive callback function one by one.
It seems to me that this patch is not moving into the right direction implementation-wise (I have read the arguments about backward-compatibility that led to the introduction of archive_library and its shell mode), for what looks like a duplicate of shared_preload_libraries but for an extra code path dedicated to the archiver, where we could just have a hook instead? We have been talking for some time now to make the archiver process more bgworker-ish, so as we finish with something closer to what the logical replication launcher is. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
