| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| 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 20:13:18 |
| Message-ID: | 31417.1586549598@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:
> FWIW, I still think it's a mistake to accumulate all these bespoke
> tools. We should go towards having one tool that can verify checksums,
> validate backup manifests etc. Partially because it's more discoverable,
> but also because it allows to verify multiple such properties in a
> single pass, rather than reading the huge base backup twice.
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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2020-04-10 20:14:58 | pg_dump issue with renamed system schemas |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-10 20:11:27 | Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10 |