On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 03:20:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 02:08:58PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> Perhaps we could eventually move the archive_command functionality to a >> contrib module (i.e., "shell_archive") so that users must always set >> archive_library. But until then, I suspect it's better to treat modules >> and commands as two separate interfaces to ease migration from older major >> versions (even though archive_command is now essentially a built-in archive >> module). > > I agree that this is a fine long-term goal, removing all traces of the > archive_command from the backend core code. This is actually an > argument in favor of having no traces of XLogArchiveCommand in > pgarch.c, no? ;p
Indeed. > I am not sure how long we should wait before being able to do that, > perhaps a couple of years of least? I'd like to think the sooner the > better (like v17?) but we are usually conservative, and the removal of > the exclusive backup mode took 5~6 years if I recall correctly.. Yeah, I imagine we'd need to mark it as deprecated-and-to-be-removed for several years first. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com