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