On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:24 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Between those two, I would use "pg_validatebackup" if there's a fair chance > > it > > will end up doing the pg_waldump check. Otherwise, I would use > > "pg_validatemanifest". > > +1.
I guess I'd like to be clear here that I have no fundamental disagreement with taking this tool in any direction that people would like it to go. For me it's just a question of timing. Feature freeze is now a week or so away, and nothing complicated is going to get done in that time. If we can all agree on something simple based on Andres's recent proposal, cool, but I'm not yet sure that will be the case, so what's plan B? We could decide that what I have here is just too little to be a viable facility on its own, but I think Stephen is the only one taking that position. We could release it as pg_validatemanifest with a plan to rename it if other backup-related checks are added later. We could release it as pg_validatebackup with the idea to avoid having to rename it when more backup-related checks are added later, but with a greater possibility of confusion in the meantime and no hard guarantee that anyone will actually develop such checks. We could put it in to pg_checksums, but I think that's really backing ourselves into a corner: if backup validation develops other checks that are not checksum-related, what then? I'd much rather gamble on keeping things together by topic (backup) than technology used internally (checksum). Putting it into pg_basebackup is another option, and would avoid that problem, but it's not my preferred option, because as I noted before, I think the command-line options will get confusing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
