Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190609110233.mgmtl7h4rvyuntdk@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:01:21PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:31:54PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I think -r/--relfilenode was actually a good suggestion. Because it >> doesn't actually check a *file* but potentially several files (forks, >> segments). The -f naming makes it sound like it operates on a specific >> file. > >Hmm. I still tend to prefer the -f/--filenode interface as that's >more consistent with what we have in the documentation, where >relfilenode gets only used when referring to the pg_class attribute. >You have a point about the fork types and extra segments, but I am not >sure that --relfilenode defines that in a better way than --filenode. >-- I agree. The "rel" prefix is there mostly because the other pg_class attributes have it too (reltablespace, reltuples, ...) and we use "filenode" elsewhere. For example we have pg_relation_filenode() function, operating with exactly this piece of information. So +1 to keep the "-f/--filenode" options. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: