Hi, On 2023-02-04 10:03:54 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 03:30:29AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > That's kind of my problem with these changes. They try to introduce new > > abstraction layers, but don't provide real abstraction, because they're > > very tightly bound to the way the functions were called before the > > refactoring. And none of these restrictions are actually documented. > > Okay. Michael, why don't we revert the shell_restore stuff for now? Once > the archive modules interface changes and the fix for this > SIGTERM-during-system() problem are in, I will work through this feedback > and give recovery modules another try. I'm still hoping to have recovery > modules ready in time for the v16 feature freeze. > > My intent was to improve this code by refactoring and reducing code > duplication, but I seem to have missed the mark. I am sorry.
FWIW, I think the patches were going roughly the right direction, they just needs a bit more work. I don't think we should expose the proc_exit() hack, and its supporting infrastructure, to the pluggable *_command logic. It's bad enough as-is, but having to do this stuff within an extension module seems likely to end badly. There's just way too much action-at-a-distance. I think Thomas has been hacking on a interruptible system() replacement. With that, a lot of this ugliness would be resolved. Greetings, Andres Freund