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
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 |