Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "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: 2020-04-11 21:50:56
Message-ID: 20200411215056.GA31515@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-Apr-11, Robert Haas wrote:

> I *would* like to find a way to address the proliferation of binaries,
> because I've got other things I'd like to do that would require
> creating still more of them, and until we come up with a scalable
> solution that makes everybody happy, there's going to be progressively
> more complaining every time. One possible solution is to adopt the
> 'git' approach and decide we're going to have one 'pg' command (or
> whatever we call it). I think the way that 'git' does it is that all
> of the real binaries are stored in a directory that users are not
> expected to have in their path, and the 'git' wrapper just looks for
> one based on the name of the subcommand.

I like this idea so much that I already proposed it in the past[1], so +1.

[1] https://postgr.es/m/20160826202911.GA320593@alvherre.pgsql

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-04-11 22:30:30 Re: Race condition in SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2020-04-11 21:46:39 Re: sqlsmith crash incremental sort