Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-06-09 Thread Tomas Vondra
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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-06-06 Thread Michael Paquier
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.

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-06-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-30 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-28 Thread Fabien COELHO
|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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-27 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-27 Thread Fabien COELHO
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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-27 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-27 Thread Michael Banck
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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-27 Thread Michael Paquier
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”,

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-27 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> 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

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-27 Thread Fabien COELHO
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,

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-26 Thread Michael Paquier
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,

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-26 Thread Fabien COELHO
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

Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

2019-05-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Was this just forgotten? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services