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

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 makes it sound like it operates on a specific
>> file.
>
>Hmm.  I still tend to prefer the -f/--filenode interface as that's
>more consistent with what we have in the documentation, where
>relfilenode gets only used when referring to the pg_class attribute.
>You have a point about the fork types and extra segments, but I am not
>sure that --relfilenode defines that in a better way than --filenode.
>--

I agree. The "rel" prefix is there mostly because the other pg_class
attributes have it too (reltablespace, reltuples, ...) and we use
"filenode" elsewhere. For example we have pg_relation_filenode() function,
operating with exactly this piece of information.

So +1 to keep the "-f/--filenode" options.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services