Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
Date
Msg-id 20190606090121.GC10729@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
List pgsql-hackers
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.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: oddity in costing presorted foreign scans withlocal stats
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: PGCOLOR? (Re: pgsql: Unified logging system for command-line programs)