Re: backup manifests

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 06:38:33PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 18:36 Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:34:52PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > > This is where I feel like I'm trying to make decisions in a vacuum. If
> > > we had a few more people weighing in on the thread on this point, I'd
> > > be happy to go with whatever the consensus was. If most people think
> > > having both --no-manifest (suppressing the manifest completely) and
> > > --manifest-checksums=none (suppressing only the checksums) is useless
> > > and confusing, then sure, let's rip the latter one out. If most people
> > > like the flexibility, let's keep it: it's already implemented and
> > > tested. But I hate to base the decision on what one or two people
> > > think.
> >
> > I'm frustrated at the lack of involvement from others also.
>
> Well, the topic of backup manifests feels like it has generated a lot of
> bickering emails, and people don't want to spend their time dealing with
> that.
>
>
> I’d like to not also.  I suppose it’s just an area that I’m particularly
> concerned with that allows me to overcome that. Backups are important to me.

The big question is whether the discussion _needs_ to be that way.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +