Greetings, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2020-04-10 14:56:48 -0400, David Steele wrote: > > On 4/10/20 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > Over at > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/172c9d9b-1d0a-1b94-1456-376b1e017...@2ndquadrant.com > > > > Peter Eisentraut suggests that pg_validatebackup should be called > > > > pg_verifybackup, with corresponding terminology changes throughout the > > > > code and documentation. > > > > > > > Here's a patch for that. I'd like to commit this quickly or abandon in > > > > quickly, because large renaming patches like this are a pain to > > > > maintain. I believe that there was a mild consensus in favor of this > > > > on that thread, so I plan to go forward unless somebody shows up > > > > pretty quickly to object. > > > > > > +1, let's get it done. > > > > I'm not sure that Peter suggested verify was the correct name, he just > > pointed out that verify and validate are not necessarily the same thing (and > > that we should be consistent in the docs one way or the other). It'd be nice > > if Peter (now CC'd) commented since he's the one who brought it up. > > > > Having said that, I'm +1 on verify. > > 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.
Would be kinda neat to have a single tool for doing backups and restores too, as well as validating backup manifests and checksums, that can back up to s3 or to a remote system with ssh, has multiple compression options and a pretty sound architecture that's all written in C and is OSS. I also agree with Tom/David that verify probably makes sense for this command, in its current form at least. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
