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
Robert Haas 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
On 4/10/20 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas 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
c
David Steele writes:
> Having said that, I'm +1 on verify.
Me too, if only because it's shorter.
regards, tom lane
On 4/10/20 3:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
David Steele writes:
Having said that, I'm +1 on verify.
Me too, if only because it's shorter.
I also think it is (probably) more correct but failing that it is
*definitely* shorter!
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
Hi,
On 2020-04-10 14:56:48 -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 4/10/20 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> > > Over at
> > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/172c9d9b-1d0a-1b94-1456-376b1e017...@2ndquadrant.com
> > > Peter Eisentraut suggests that pg_validatebackup should be cal
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 writes:
> > > > Over at
> > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/172c9d9b-1d0a-1b94-1456-376b1e017...@2ndquadrant.com
> > > >
Andres Freund writes:
> 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 proper
Hi,
On 2020-04-10 16:13:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > 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,
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-04-10 16:13:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, we're not getting there for v13. Are you proposing that this
>> patch just be reverted because it doesn't do everything at once?
> No. I suggest choosing a name that's compatible with moving more
> capabilities under
Hi,
On 2020-04-10 16:40:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2020-04-10 16:13:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, we're not getting there for v13. Are you proposing that this
> >> patch just be reverted because it doesn't do everything at once?
>
> > No. I suggest choosing
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-04-10 16:40:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It doesn't really seem like either name is problematic from that
>> standpoint? "Verify backup" isn't prejudging what aspect of the
>> backup is going to be verified, AFAICS.
> My point is that I'd eventually like to see th
Hi,
On 2020-04-10 17:23:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2020-04-10 16:40:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It doesn't really seem like either name is problematic from that
> >> standpoint? "Verify backup" isn't prejudging what aspect of the
> >> backup is going to be verifi
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 5:24 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Meh. I would argue that that's an actively BAD idea. The use-cases
> are entirely different, the implementation is going to be quite a lot
> different, the relevant options are going to be quite a lot different.
> It will not be better for either
On 2020-Apr-11, Robert Haas wrote:
> I *would* like to find a way to address the proliferation of binaries,
> because I've got other things I'd like to do that would require
> creating still more of them, and until we come up with a scalable
> solution that makes everybody happy, there's going to
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 02:48:05PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't agree with any of that. Combining the manifest validation with
> checksum validation halves the IO. It allows to offload some of the
> expense of verifying page level checksums from the primary.
>
> And all of the operations
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 05:50:56PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Apr-11, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I *would* like to find a way to address the proliferation of binaries,
>> because I've got other things I'd like to do that would require
>> creating still more of them, and until we come up with
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 19:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, their stuff is nice. Another nice thing is that git has the
> possibility to scan as well for custom scripts as long as they respect
> the naming convention, like having a custom script called "git-foo",
> that can be called as "git f
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:51 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I like this idea so much that I already proposed it in the past[1], so +1.
>
> [1] https://postgr.es/m/20160826202911.GA320593@alvherre.pgsql
Hey, look at that. I think I had some vague recollection of a prior
proposal, but I couldn't rememb
Robert Haas writes:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:51 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I like this idea so much that I already proposed it in the past[1], so +1.
>>
>> [1] https://postgr.es/m/20160826202911.GA320593@alvherre.pgsql
> Hey, look at that. I think I had some vague recollection of a prior
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:58 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:51 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> >> I like this idea so much that I already proposed it in the past[1], so
> +1.
> >>
> >> [1] https://postgr.es/m/20160826202911.GA320593@alvherre.pgsql
>
> > Hey,
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 11:02 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> There's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pg_(Unix).
>
> So it's been removed from posix, but not unlikely to be around. For example,
> I see it on a server with Debian 9 (Stretch) or Ubuntu 16.04 which is still
> well in support (but not on
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 5:22 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 11:02 AM Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
> > There's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pg_(Unix).
> >
> > So it's been removed from posix, but not unlikely to be around. For
> example, I see it on a server with Debian 9 (Stretch)
Hi,
On 2020-04-12 10:57:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I'd be happier with "pg" than "pg_ctl" as well. But it's so
> short that I wonder if some other software has already adopted it.
FWIW, Debian unstable does not have a 'pg' binary. There's a few modules
in various languages called 'pg', bu
On 2020-04-12 11:21:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> We could also have an alternate name, like pgsql, and make 'pg' a
> symlink to it that packagers can choose to omit.
We could even name the non-abbreviated binary postgres :).
Sure, that'd cause a bit more trouble upgrading for people that script
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-04-12 11:21:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> We could also have an alternate name, like pgsql, and make 'pg' a
>> symlink to it that packagers can choose to omit.
> We could even name the non-abbreviated binary postgres :).
I shudder to imagine the confusion that w
lto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 5:07 AM
To: Andres Freund
Cc: Robert Haas ; Magnus Hagander ;
Alvaro Herrera ; David Steele ;
pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org; Peter Eisentraut
Subject: Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2020-04-12 11:21:50 -0400,
I recklessly join the discussion about naming.
At Sun, 12 Apr 2020 17:29:55 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote
in
> Agreed, pgsql would certainly be better than pg_ctl.
I like pgsql. And if we are going to join to the THREE-LETTERS
CONTROLLER COMMANDS ALLIANCE, pgc (pg controller) might be a candida
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:20 PM Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan A&PS
Delivery) wrote:
> Sorry this email is not a discussion about word selection.
> Since part of the manual had left pg_validatebackup in commit
> dbc60c5593f26dc777a3be032bff4fb4eab1ddd1.
> I've attached a patch to fix this.
Commit
29 matches
Mail list logo
