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

From David Steele
Subject Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
Date
Msg-id e8020c99-31dd-7ead-53e0-0ecb290e67b0@pgmasters.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
List pgsql-hackers
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.

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel copy
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Properly mark NULL returns in numeric aggregates