| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tels <nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: backup manifests |
| Date: | 2020-03-30 19:16:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20200330191631.yjgvpdfd6u3raebw@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-03-30 15:04:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I guess I'd like to be clear here that I have no fundamental
> disagreement with taking this tool in any direction that people would
> like it to go. For me it's just a question of timing. Feature freeze
> is now a week or so away, and nothing complicated is going to get done
> in that time. If we can all agree on something simple based on
> Andres's recent proposal, cool, but I'm not yet sure that will be the
> case, so what's plan B? We could decide that what I have here is just
> too little to be a viable facility on its own, but I think Stephen is
> the only one taking that position. We could release it as
> pg_validatemanifest with a plan to rename it if other backup-related
> checks are added later. We could release it as pg_validatebackup with
> the idea to avoid having to rename it when more backup-related checks
> are added later, but with a greater possibility of confusion in the
> meantime and no hard guarantee that anyone will actually develop such
> checks. We could put it in to pg_checksums, but I think that's really
> backing ourselves into a corner: if backup validation develops other
> checks that are not checksum-related, what then? I'd much rather
> gamble on keeping things together by topic (backup) than technology
> used internally (checksum). Putting it into pg_basebackup is another
> option, and would avoid that problem, but it's not my preferred
> option, because as I noted before, I think the command-line options
> will get confusing.
I'm mildly inclined to name it pg_validate, pg_validate_dbdir or
such. And eventually (definitely not this release) subsume pg_checksums
in it. That way we can add other checkers too.
I don't really see a point in ending up with lots of different commands
over time. Partially because there's probably plenty checks where the
overall cost can be drastically reduced by combining IO. Partially
because there's probably plenty shareable infrastructure. And partially
because I think it makes discovery for users a lot easier.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-03-30 19:23:08 | Re: backup manifests |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2020-03-30 19:10:59 | Re: tweaking perfect hash multipliers |