Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 12:12:26 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	"Jonathan Gonzalez V." <jonathan@abdiel.eu>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Introduce psystem() to replace system()
Message-ID: <anypegmIZfURWOzy@nathan>
References: <87zeyt93ns.fsf@abdiel.eu>
 <2314092.1786402806@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <bf4e5496-ec09-429e-b8df-7d450c721154@eisentraut.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bf4e5496-ec09-429e-b8df-7d450c721154@eisentraut.org>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/anypegmIZfURWOzy%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

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