On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 02:42:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 08:28:34AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> There are two discussion points which deserve attention here: >> 1) Do we want to rename pg_verify_checksums to something else, like >> pg_checksums. I like a lot if we would do a simple renaming of the >> tool, which should be the first step taken. > > I am for it, but don't mind whether it's before or afterwards, your > call.
Doing the renaming after would be a bit weird logically, as we would finish with a point in time in the tree where pg_verify_checksums is able to do something else than just verifying checksums. > Even though my fork has the separate switches, I like the --action one. > On the other hand, it is a bit more typing as you always have to spell > out the action (is there precendent of accepting also incomplete option > arguments like 'v', 'e', 'd'?). Yes, there is a bit of that in psql for example for formats. Not sure that we should take this road for a checksumming tool though. If a new option is added which takes the first letter then we would have incompatibility issues. That's unlikely to happen, still that feels uneasy. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
