Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2020-04-11T21:50:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 be progressively
> more complaining every time. One possible solution is to adopt the
> 'git' approach and decide we're going to have one 'pg' command (or
> whatever we call it). I think the way that 'git' does it is that all
> of the real binaries are stored in a directory that users are not
> expected to have in their path, and the 'git' wrapper just looks for
> one based on the name of the subcommand.

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

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



Commits

  1. Rename pg_validatebackup to pg_verifybackup some more.

  2. Rename pg_validatebackup to pg_verifybackup.