On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:01:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:31:54PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think -r/--relfilenode was actually a good suggestion. Because it
doesn't actually check a *file* but potentially several files (forks,
segments). The -f naming
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:31:54PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think -r/--relfilenode was actually a good suggestion. Because it
> doesn't actually check a *file* but potentially several files (forks,
> segments). The -f naming makes it sound like it operates on a specific
> file.
Hmm.
On 2019-05-28 04:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You could also use a long option for that without a one-letter option,
> like --file-path or such, so reserving a one-letter option for a
> future, hypothetical use is not really a stopper in my opinion. In
> consequence, I think that that it is fine
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 04:22:37PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Works for me. Doc build is ok as well.
Thanks, committed.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
|I have no problem with changing it to -r. -f seems a bit wrong to me,
|as it might read as a file. And in the future we might want to implement
|the ability to take full filename (with path), in which case it would
|make sense to use -f for that.
You could also use a long option for that
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:17:43AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Before we switch to -f out of consistency with oid2name, we should
> consider Magnus' argument from
> cabuevezoexaxbcymmzsnf1aqdcwovys7-chqcugry5+nsqz...@mail.gmail.com IMO:
>
> |I have no problem with changing it to -r. -f seems a
Bonjour Michael,
+
+ -f filenode
+
--filenode=filenode
+
+
+Only validate checksums in the relation with specified relation file
node.
+
Two nits. I would just have been careful about the number of
characters in the line within the markup. And
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 08:32:21AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I've used both -f & --filenode in the test to check that the renaming was
> ok. I have reordered the options in the documentation so that they appear in
> alphabetical order, as for some reason --progress was out of it.
No objection
Hi,
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:22:42AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 27 May 2019, at 03:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > pg_verify_checksums has been using -r for whatever reason, but as we
> > do a renaming of the binary for v12 we could just fix that
> > inconsistency as well.
>
> The
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:22:42AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The original patch used -o in pg_verify_checksums, the discussion of which
> started in the below mail:
>
> https://postgr.es/m/20180228194242.qbjasdtwm2yj5rqg%40alvherre.pgsql
>
> Since -f was already used for “force check”,
> On 27 May 2019, at 03:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
> pg_verify_checksums has been using -r for whatever reason, but as we
> do a renaming of the binary for v12 we could just fix that
> inconsistency as well.
The original patch used -o in pg_verify_checksums, the discussion of which
started in
Hello Michael-san,
No objections with adding a long option for that stuff. But I do have
an objection with the naming because we have another tool able to work
on relfilenodes:
$ oid2name --help | grep FILE
-f, --filenode=FILENODEshow info for table with given file node
In this case,
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 08:35:30AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Probably? Attached a patch.
No objections with adding a long option for that stuff. But I do have
an objection with the naming because we have another tool able to work
on relfilenodes:
$ oid2name --help | grep FILE
-f,
Subject: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
Was this just forgotten?
Probably? Attached a patch.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_checksums.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_checksums.sgml
index a0ffeb0ab0..5549ea679a 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_checksums.sgml
+++ b
Was this just forgotten?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
15 matches
Mail list logo