On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:32 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I don't like having a file format that's intended to be used by external
> tools too that's undocumented except for code that assembles it in a
> piecemeal fashion. Do you mean in a follow-on patch this release, or
> later? I don't have a problem with the former.
This release. I'm happy to work on that as soon as this gets
committed, assuming it gets committed.
> I do found it to be circular. I think we mostly need a paragraph or two
> somewhere that explains on a higher level what the point of verifying
> base backups is and what is verified.
Fair enough.
> FWIW, I was thinking of backup_manifest.checksum potentially being
> desirable for another reason: The need to embed the checksum inside the
> document imo adds a fair bit of rigidity to the file format. See
Well, David Steele suggested this approach. I didn't particularly like
it, but nobody showed up to agree with me or propose anything
different, so here we are. I don't think it's the end of the world.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
