| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:32:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20200412193251.5b6ujndga3vyp6bj@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-04-12 10:57:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I'd be happier with "pg" than "pg_ctl" as well. But it's so
> short that I wonder if some other software has already adopted it.
FWIW, Debian unstable does not have a 'pg' binary. There's a few modules
in various languages called 'pg', but that's not a problem.
I personally think it might be a good idea to 'claim' the pg binary
soon, so that doesn't change. Even if we should support a command or two
through it initially (e.g. pg_ctl ... -> pg ctl ...).
Regards,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-12 19:39:12 | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-12 19:24:24 | Re: where should I stick that backup? |