On 2025-08-01 Fr 8:24 PM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
On Saturday, August 2, 2025 12:59 AM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>
wrote:
On 2025-08-01 Fr 11:03 AM, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
On Friday, August 1, 2025 8:56 PM Andrew Dunstan mailto:and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
We have another example to consider: pg_amcheck, which allows users to
specify multiple databases.
I don't think that's quite the point, as I understand it. pg_amcheck might
allow you to have multiple --database arguments, but I don't think it depends
on the order of arguments. You didn't answer his question about what
getopt_long() does. I don't recall if it is free to mangle the argument order.
I think you might misunderstand my proposal. I am suggesting an alternative
interface style that employs database-qualified table names, which doesn't
depend on the order of options. This style is already used by pg_amcheck when
dealing with multiple database specifications. I referenced pg_amcheck as an
example.
I simple took your own description: The attached patch introduces a new
'--table' option that can be specified after each '--database' argument. Maybe I
need some remedial English, but to me that "after" says that argument order is
significant.
Allow me to clarify the situation. The description you referenced is the
original interface proposed by the author in the initial email. However, it was
found to be unstable due to its reliance on the argument order. In response to
the discussion, instead of supporting the original interface, I suggested an
alternative interface to consider, which is the one that does not depend on
argument order, as I mentioned in my previous email.
Apologies, then, I misread the thread.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
