| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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 21:19:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20200410211959.x7bhdpserbrdncpa@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-04-10 16:40:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2020-04-10 16:13:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, we're not getting there for v13. Are you proposing that this
> >> patch just be reverted because it doesn't do everything at once?
>
> > No. I suggest choosing a name that's compatible with moving more
> > capabilities under the same umbrella at a later time (and I suggested
> > the same pre freeze too). Possibly adding a toplevel --verify-manifest
> > option as the only change besides naming.
>
> It doesn't really seem like either name is problematic from that
> standpoint? "Verify backup" isn't prejudging what aspect of the
> backup is going to be verified, AFAICS.
My point is that I'd eventually like to see the same tool also be usable
to just verify the checksums of a normal, non-backup, data directory.
We shouldn't end up with pg_verifybackup, pg_checksums,
pg_dbdir_checknofilesmissing, pg_checkpageheaders, ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-10 21:23:58 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-10 21:17:10 | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |