On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 02:49:51PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> And, by the way, this patch would prevent the existence of archive
> modules that need to be loaded but *want* an archive_command with
> what they want to achieve. That does not strike me as a good idea if
> we want to have a maximum of flexibility with this facility.
Such a module could define a custom GUC that accepts a shell command. I
don't think we should overload the meaning of archive_command based on the
whims of whatever archive module is loaded. Besides the potential end-user
confusion, your archive_command might be unexpectedly used incorrectly if
you forget to set archive_library.
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).
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com