On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:27:31PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Yes, it couldn't be exactly the same as a generic background worker,
> that's a good point. We definitely need to make sure that the
> postmaster waits for the archiver to shut down, as it does for the WAL
> senders.
Just to be clear, please note I don't think that what removing the
archiver code from the core code is a bad idea, quite the contrary
actually. But I doubt that it would be acceptable to rip off this code
without something which has the same properties and guarantees for any
users depending on it. And archive_command is used a lot.
--
Michael
