Re: backup manifests

On 4/2/20 1:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> There
> are still some things that not everybody is happy about. In
> particular, Stephen and David are unhappy about using CRC-32C as the
> default algorithm, but Andres and Noah both think it's a reasonable
> choice, even if not as robust as everybody will want. As I agree, I'm
> going to stick with that choice.

Yeah, I seem to be on the losing side of this argument, at least for
now, so I don't think it should block the commit of this patch. It's an
easy enough tweak if we change our minds.

> For my part, I think this is a general issue that is not really this
> patch's problem to solve. We have had multiple discussions over the
> years about reducing the number of binaries that we ship. We could
> have a general binary called "pg" or similar and use subcommands: pg
> createdb, pg basebackup, pg validatebackup, etc. I think such an
> approach is worth considering, though it would certainly be an
> adjustment for everyone. Or we might do something else. But I don't
> want to deal with that in this patch.

I'm fine with the current name, especially now that WAL is validated.

> A couple of other minor suggestions have been made: (1) rejigger
> things to avoid message duplication related to launching external
> binaries,

That'd be nice to have, but I think we can live without it for now.

> (2) maybe use appendShellString

Seems like this would be good to have but I'm not going to make a fuss
about it.

> and (3) change some details
> of error-reporting related to manifest parsing. I don't believe anyone
> views these as blockers

I'd view this as later refinement once we see how the tool is being used
and/or get gripes from the field.

So, with the addition of the 0004 patch down-thread this looks
committable to me.

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net