The archive_command system is a bit clunky, is it not? Not exactly elegant to have replication and backup be dependent on a shell command set as a text parameter in the configuration? But clunkiness aside, it's damn slow if you have a large and active database, since it reruns the command for every WAL segment; if you have consistent high throughput, how can it even keep up?
pgBackRest, for one, has asynchronous archiving; their docs say
The asynchronous archive-push command offloads WAL archiving to a separate process (or processes) to improve throughput
That's an understatement! Should say "rescues throughput" instead, >10x difference, especially when parallelism is set as well.
But not everyone uses pgBackRest or other 3rd-party tools, and backup/replication are extremely essential components to any database system, so shouldn't the Postgres dev s look into improving the built-in system?
Eager to be told I have no clue what I'm talking about--you can't offend me!
submitted by
/u/thythr [link] [comments] 
