| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: clean up pg_checksums.sgml |
| Date: | 2019-04-08 00:15:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20190408001546.GD10080@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 10:51:23AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:32:10AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > PFA patch with minor improvements to documentation.
>
> Patch does not apply, and I have reworded the last paragraph about
> failures while operating.
Sorry, the patch was on top of an brief effort I made to rename "check
checksums" to "verify checksums", before asking about the idea.
PFA patch to master.
Justin
> > Also, what do you think about changing user-facing language from
> > "check checksum" to "verify checksum" ? I see that commit ed308d78
> > actually moved in the other direction, but I preferred "verify".
>
> Yes, that's a debate that we had during the discussion for the new
> switches, and we have decided to use --check over --verify for the
> default option. On the one hand, "Check checksums" is rather
> redundant, but that's more consistent with the option name. "Verify
> checksums" is perhaps more elegant. My opinion is that having some
> consistency between the option names and the docs is nicer.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Clean-up-pg_checksums.sgml.patch | text/x-diff | 2.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2019-04-08 00:28:47 | Cleanup/remove/update references to OID column |
| Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2019-04-08 00:09:10 | RE: Timeout parameters |