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