| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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 21:23:58 |
| Message-ID: | 2417.1586553838@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-04-10 16:40:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It doesn't really seem like either name is problematic from that
>> standpoint? "Verify backup" isn't prejudging what aspect of the
>> backup is going to be verified, AFAICS.
> My point is that I'd eventually like to see the same tool also be usable
> to just verify the checksums of a normal, non-backup, data directory.
Meh. I would argue that that's an actively BAD idea. The use-cases
are entirely different, the implementation is going to be quite a lot
different, the relevant options are going to be quite a lot different.
It will not be better for either implementors or users to force those
into the same executable.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-10 21:44:10 | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-10 21:19:59 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |