> On 27 Aug 2018, at 14:05, Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:34:12 +0200 > Michael Banck <michael.ba...@credativ.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 07:53:36PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 18:01:09 +0200 >>> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> I'm curious about this option: >>>> >>>> -r RELFILENODE check only relation with specified relfilenode >>>> >>>> but there is no facility to specify a database. >>>> >>>> Also, referring to the relfilenode of a mapped relation seems a bit >>>> inaccurate. >>>> >>>> Maybe reframing this in terms of the file name of the file you want >>>> checked would be better? >>> >>> If we specified 1234 to -r option, pg_verify_shceksums checks not only 1234 >>> but also 1234_vm, 1234_fsm, and 1234.1, 1234.2, ... and so on, so I think >>> it makes senses to allow to specify a relfilenode instead of a file name. >>> >>> I think it is reasonable to add a option to specify a database, although >>> I don't know which character is good because both -d and -D are already >>> used.... >> >> Maybe the -d (debug) option should be revisited as well. Mentioning >> every scanned block generates a huge amount of output which might be >> useful during development but does not seem very useful for a stable >> release. AFAICT there is no other debug output for now. >> >> So it could be renamed to -v (verbose) and only mention each scanned >> file, e.g. (errors/checksum mismatches are still reported of course). >> >> Then -d could (in the future, I guess that is too late for v11) be used >> for -d/--dbname (or make that only a long option, if the above does not >> work). > > I realized after sending the previous post that we can not specify a database > by name because pg_verify_checksum is run in offline and this can not get the > OID from the database name. Also, there are global and pg_tblspc directories > not only base/<database OID>. So, it seems to me good to specify a directories > to scan which is under PGDATA. We would be able to use -d ( or --directory ?) > for this purpose.
Changing functionality to the above discussed is obviously 12 material, but since we are discussing changing the command line API of the tool by repurposing -d; do we want to rename the current use of -d to -v (with the accompanying —-verbose) before 11 ships? It’s clearly way way too late in the cycle but it seems worth to at least bring up since 11 will be the first version pg_verify_checksums ship in. I’m happy to do the work asap if so. FWIW, personally I think verbose makes more sense for the output than debug. cheers ./daniel
