Greetings,
* Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
> 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.
Would be kinda neat to have a single tool for doing backups and restores
too, as well as validating backup manifests and checksums, that can back
up to s3 or to a remote system with ssh, has multiple compression
options and a pretty sound architecture that's all written in C and is
OSS.
I also agree with Tom/David that verify probably makes sense for this
command, in its current form at least.
Thanks,
Stephen
