| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jonathan Gonzalez V(dot)" <jonathan(at)abdiel(dot)eu>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce psystem() to replace system() |
| Date: | 2026-08-12 17:12:26 |
| Message-ID: | anypegmIZfURWOzy@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 07:05:36PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11.08.26 01:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think breaking the existing definition of archive_command and
>> similar GUCs is a nonstarter. You're going to make many users
>> unhappy and only a tiny minority happier.
>
> Right. The direction should be, you don't have to use archive_command.
> There is already an alternative in archive_library, or indirectly by using
> something like pg_receivewal. Similar alternatives could be designed for
> other cases where a shell command appears in a public API.
+1. This conversation makes me wonder about reviving the "restore modules"
work [0].
[0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/20221227192449.GA3672473%40nathanxps13
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-08-12 17:17:22 | Re: problems with toast.* reloptions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-08-12 17:05:36 | Re: Introduce psystem() to replace system() |