On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 5:18 PM Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > > >>> I think that it may break --no-vacuum, and I thought that there may be > >>> other option which remove things, eventually. Also, having a NO-OP looks > >>> ok to me. > >> > >> As far as I read the code, checkInitSteps() checks the initialization > >> steps that users specified. The initialization steps string that > >> "v" was replaced with blank character is not given to checkInitSteps(). > >> So ISTM that dropping the handling of blank character from > >> checkInitSteps() doesn't break --no-vacuum. > >> > > This is a patch which does not allow space character in -I options . > > I do not think that this is desirable. It would be a regression, and > allowing a no-op is not an issue in anyway.
Why is that regression, you think? I think that's an oversight. If I'm missing something and accepting a blank character as no-op in also checkInitSteps() is really necessary for some reasons, which should be documented. But, if so, another question is; why should only blank character be treated as no-op, in checkInitSteps()? Regards, -- Fujii Masao
