Hi,
On 2020-04-10 14:56:48 -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 4/10/20 11:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Over at https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/172c9d9b-1d0a-1b94-1456-376b1e017322@2ndquadrant.com
> > > Peter Eisentraut suggests that pg_validatebackup should be called
> > > pg_verifybackup, with corresponding terminology changes throughout the
> > > code and documentation.
> >
> > > Here's a patch for that. I'd like to commit this quickly or abandon in
> > > quickly, because large renaming patches like this are a pain to
> > > maintain. I believe that there was a mild consensus in favor of this
> > > on that thread, so I plan to go forward unless somebody shows up
> > > pretty quickly to object.
> >
> > +1, let's get it done.
>
> I'm not sure that Peter suggested verify was the correct name, he just
> pointed out that verify and validate are not necessarily the same thing (and
> that we should be consistent in the docs one way or the other). It'd be nice
> if Peter (now CC'd) commented since he's the one who brought it up.
>
> Having said that, I'm +1 on verify.
FWIW, I still think it's a mistake to accumulate all these bespoke
tools. We should go towards having one tool that can verify checksums,
validate backup manifests etc. Partially because it's more discoverable,
but also because it allows to verify multiple such properties in a
single pass, rather than reading the huge base backup twice.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
