Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "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: 2020-04-12 20:07:15
Message-ID: 17504.1586722035@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 2020-04-12 11:21:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> We could also have an alternate name, like pgsql, and make 'pg' a
>> symlink to it that packagers can choose to omit.

> We could even name the non-abbreviated binary postgres :).

I shudder to imagine the confusion that would result.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2020-04-12 20:12:59 Re: cleaning perl code
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-04-12 19:39:12 Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?