On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 08:56:24AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 02:25:54PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> These are all good points. Perhaps there could be a base archiver
>> implementation that shell_archive uses (and that other modules could use if
>> desired, which might be important for backward compatibility with the
>> existing callbacks). But if you want to do something fancier than
>> archiving sequentially, you could write your own.
>
> Which is basically the kind of things you can already achieve with a
> background worker and a module of your own?
IMO one of the big pieces that's missing is a way to get the next N files
to archive. Right now, you'd have to trawl through archive_status on your
own if you wanted to batch/parallelize. I think one advantage of what
Robert is suggesting is that we could easily provide a supported way to get
the next set of files to archive, and we can asynchronously mark them
"done". Otherwise, each module has to implement this.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com