Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
Date
Msg-id CABUevExo2v09XYKH02wRqhfz8HGQPrJ3NMBGa6hMsmXRyjk89Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:58 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:51 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> I like this idea so much that I already proposed it in the past[1], so +1.
>>
>> [1] https://postgr.es/m/20160826202911.GA320593@alvherre.pgsql

> Hey, look at that. I think I had some vague recollection of a prior
> proposal, but I couldn't remember exactly who or exactly what had been
> proposed. I do think that pg_ctl is too long a prefix, though. People
> can get used to typing 'pg createdb' instead of 'createdb' but 'pg_ctl
> createdb' seems like too much. At least, it would very very quickly
> cause me to install aliases.

Yeah, I'd be happier with "pg" than "pg_ctl" as well.  But it's so
short that I wonder if some other software has already adopted it.


So it's been removed from posix, but not unlikely to be around. For example, I see it on a server with Debian 9 (Stretch) or Ubuntu 16.04 which is still well in support (but not on a RedHat from the same era). 

--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: where should I stick that backup?