From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? |
Date: | 2019-06-09 11:02:33 |
Message-ID: | 20190609110233.mgmtl7h4rvyuntdk@development |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:01:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:31:54PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I think -r/--relfilenode was actually a good suggestion. Because it
>> doesn't actually check a *file* but potentially several files (forks,
>> segments). The -f naming makes it sound like it operates on a specific
>> file.
>
>Hmm. I still tend to prefer the -f/--filenode interface as that's
>more consistent with what we have in the documentation, where
>relfilenode gets only used when referring to the pg_class attribute.
>You have a point about the fork types and extra segments, but I am not
>sure that --relfilenode defines that in a better way than --filenode.
>--
I agree. The "rel" prefix is there mostly because the other pg_class
attributes have it too (reltablespace, reltuples, ...) and we use
"filenode" elsewhere. For example we have pg_relation_filenode() function,
operating with exactly this piece of information.
So +1 to keep the "-f/--filenode" options.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-06-09 15:21:09 | Re: Use of reloptions by EXTENSIONs |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-06-09 10:47:42 | Re: Binary support for pgoutput plugin |