Hi,
On 2020-04-10 17:23:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2020-04-10 16:40:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It doesn't really seem like either name is problematic from that
> >> standpoint? "Verify backup" isn't prejudging what aspect of the
> >> backup is going to be verified, AFAICS.
>
> > My point is that I'd eventually like to see the same tool also be usable
> > to just verify the checksums of a normal, non-backup, data directory.
>
> Meh. I would argue that that's an actively BAD idea. The use-cases
> are entirely different, the implementation is going to be quite a lot
> different, the relevant options are going to be quite a lot different.
> It will not be better for either implementors or users to force those
> into the same executable.
I don't agree with any of that. Combining the manifest validation with
checksum validation halves the IO. It allows to offload some of the
expense of verifying page level checksums from the primary.
And all of the operations require iterating through data directories,
classify files that are part / not part of a normal data directory, etc.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
