On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 6:36 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > > I'd like to gauge interest in parallelizing the archiver process. > [...] > Based on previous threads I've seen, I believe many in the community > would like to replace archive_command entirely, but what I'm proposing > here would build on the existing tools.
Having a new implementation that would remove the archive_command is probably a better long term solution, but I don't know of anyone working on that and it's probably gonna take some time. Right now we have a lot of users that face archiving bottleneck so I think it would be a good thing to implement parallel archiving, fully compatible with current archive_command, as a short term solution.
