Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 05:50:56PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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

Yeah, their stuff is nice. Another nice thing is that git has the
possibility to scan as well for custom scripts as long as they respect
the naming convention, like having a custom script called "git-foo",
that can be called as "git foo".
--
Michael