On 9/29/21, 9:49 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > I'm sure there are other ways to approach this, but I thought I'd give > it a try to see what was possible and to get the conversation started.
BTW I am also considering the background worker approach that was mentioned upthread. My current thinking is that the backup extension would define a special background worker that communicates with the archiver via shared memory. As noted upthread, this would enable extension authors to do whatever batching, parallelism, etc. that they want, and it should also prevent failures from taking down the archiver process. However, this approach might not make sense for things like recovery_end_command that are only executed once. Maybe it's okay to leave that one alone for now. Nathan
