Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "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 18:56:48
Message-ID: e8020c99-31dd-7ead-53e0-0ecb290e67b0@pgmasters.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/10/20 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Over at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/172c9d9b-1d0a-1b94-1456-376b1e017322@2ndquadrant.com
>> Peter Eisentraut suggests that pg_validatebackup should be called
>> pg_verifybackup, with corresponding terminology changes throughout the
>> code and documentation.
>
>> Here's a patch for that. I'd like to commit this quickly or abandon in
>> quickly, because large renaming patches like this are a pain to
>> maintain. I believe that there was a mild consensus in favor of this
>> on that thread, so I plan to go forward unless somebody shows up
>> pretty quickly to object.
>
> +1, let's get it done.

I'm not sure that Peter suggested verify was the correct name, he just
pointed out that verify and validate are not necessarily the same thing
(and that we should be consistent in the docs one way or the other).
It'd be nice if Peter (now CC'd) commented since he's the one who
brought it up.

Having said that, I'm +1 on verify.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2020-04-10 19:14:04 Re: Properly mark NULL returns in numeric aggregates
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-04-10 18:26:05 Re: Parallel copy