Re: parallelizing the archiver

On 10/4/21, 7:21 PM, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> This has something we've contemplated quite a bit and the last thing
> that I'd want to have is a requirement to configure a whole bunch of
> additional parameters to enable this. Why do we need to have some many
> new GUCs? I would have thought we'd probably be able to get away with
> just having the appropriate hooks and then telling folks to load the
> extension in shared_preload_libraries..

That would certainly simplify my patch quite a bit. I'll do it this
way in the next revision.

> As for the hooks themselves, I'd certainly hope that they'd be designed
> to handle batches of WAL rather than individual ones as that's long been
> one of the main issues with the existing archive command approach. I
> appreciate that maybe that's less of an issue with a shared library but
> it's still something to consider.

Will do. This seems like it should be easier with the hook because we
can provide a way to return which files were successfully archived.

Nathan