| 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 20:40:02 |
| Message-ID: | 32711.1586551202@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 16:13:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-04-10 20:41:10 | Re: pg_basebackup, manifests and backends older than ~12 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-10 20:35:25 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |