Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-04-10 16:40:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It doesn't really seem like either name is problematic from that
>> standpoint? "Verify backup" isn't prejudging what aspect of the
>> backup is going to be verified, AFAICS.
> My point is that I'd eventually like to see the same tool also be usable
> to just verify the checksums of a normal, non-backup, data directory.
Meh. I would argue that that's an actively BAD idea. The use-cases
are entirely different, the implementation is going to be quite a lot
different, the relevant options are going to be quite a lot different.
It will not be better for either implementors or users to force those
into the same executable.
regards, tom lane
