On 4/2/20 1:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
There
are still some things that not everybody is happy about. In
particular, Stephen and David are unhappy about using CRC-32C as the
default algorithm, but Andres and Noah both think it's a reasonable
choice, even if not as robust as everybody will want. As I agree, I'm
going to stick with that choice.
Yeah, I seem to be on the losing side of this argument, at least for
now, so I don't think it should block the commit of this patch. It's an
easy enough tweak if we change our minds.
For my part, I think this is a general issue that is not really this
patch's problem to solve. We have had multiple discussions over the
years about reducing the number of binaries that we ship. We could
have a general binary called "pg" or similar and use subcommands: pg
createdb, pg basebackup, pg validatebackup, etc. I think such an
approach is worth considering, though it would certainly be an
adjustment for everyone. Or we might do something else. But I don't
want to deal with that in this patch.
I'm fine with the current name, especially now that WAL is validated.
A couple of other minor suggestions have been made: (1) rejigger
things to avoid message duplication related to launching external
binaries,
That'd be nice to have, but I think we can live without it for now.
(2) maybe use appendShellString
Seems like this would be good to have but I'm not going to make a fuss
about it.
and (3) change some details
of error-reporting related to manifest parsing. I don't believe anyone
views these as blockers
I'd view this as later refinement once we see how the tool is being used
and/or get gripes from the field.
So, with the addition of the 0004 patch down-thread this looks
committable to me.
Regards,
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
