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
