| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
| Date: | 2020-04-10 20:35:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20200410203525.pdbtbm27uhczvyx6@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-04-10 16:13:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > FWIW, I still think it's a mistake to accumulate all these bespoke
> > tools. We should go towards having one tool that can verify checksums,
> > validate backup manifests etc. Partially because it's more discoverable,
> > but also because it allows to verify multiple such properties in a
> > single pass, rather than reading the huge base backup twice.
>
> Well, we're not getting there for v13. Are you proposing that this
> patch just be reverted because it doesn't do everything at once?
No. I suggest choosing a name that's compatible with moving more
capabilities under the same umbrella at a later time (and I suggested
the same pre freeze too). Possibly adding a toplevel --verify-manifest
option as the only change besides naming.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-10 20:40:02 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2020-04-10 20:32:08 | Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12 |