Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15135.1586703479@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup?
Re: pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: