Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
Date
Msg-id 15135.1586703479@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:51 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> 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 remember exactly who or exactly what had been
> proposed. I do think that pg_ctl is too long a prefix, though. People
> can get used to typing 'pg createdb' instead of 'createdb' but 'pg_ctl
> createdb' seems like too much. At least, it would very very quickly
> cause me to install aliases.

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.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Add "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" to default flags (was Re: pgsql: Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES)
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?