Re: clean up pg_checksums.sgml
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2019-03-30T01:51:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:32:10AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > PFA patch with minor improvements to documentation. Patch does not apply, and I have reworded the last paragraph about failures while operating. > Also, what do you think about changing user-facing language from > "check checksum" to "verify checksum" ? I see that commit ed308d78 > actually moved in the other direction, but I preferred "verify". Yes, that's a debate that we had during the discussion for the new switches, and we have decided to use --check over --verify for the default option. On the one hand, "Check checksums" is rather redundant, but that's more consistent with the option name. "Verify checksums" is perhaps more elegant. My opinion is that having some consistency between the option names and the docs is nicer. -- Michael
Commits
-
Tweak wording of documentation for pg_checksums
- e3865c37544d 12.0 landed
-
Add options to enable and disable checksums in pg_checksums
- ed308d783790 12.0 cited