On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:32 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > I don't like having a file format that's intended to be used by external > tools too that's undocumented except for code that assembles it in a > piecemeal fashion. Do you mean in a follow-on patch this release, or > later? I don't have a problem with the former.
This release. I'm happy to work on that as soon as this gets committed, assuming it gets committed. > I do found it to be circular. I think we mostly need a paragraph or two > somewhere that explains on a higher level what the point of verifying > base backups is and what is verified. Fair enough. > FWIW, I was thinking of backup_manifest.checksum potentially being > desirable for another reason: The need to embed the checksum inside the > document imo adds a fair bit of rigidity to the file format. See Well, David Steele suggested this approach. I didn't particularly like it, but nobody showed up to agree with me or propose anything different, so here we are. I don't think it's the end of the world. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
