Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> FWIW, +1. I would consider it a bugfix (backpatch, etc). > > While it's a feature I'd very much like to see, I really don't think > you can consider it a bugfix. It's functionality that was left out - > it's not like we tried to implement it and it didn't work. We pushed > the whole implementation to "next version" (and then forgot about > actually putting it in the next version, until now)
Thanks for reminding me about that, I completely forgot about all that. On the other hand, discrepancies in between command line arguments processing in our tools are already not helping our users (even if pg_dump -d seems to have been fixed along the years); so much so that I'm having a hard time finding any upside into having a different set of command line argument capabilities for the same tool depending on the major version. We are not talking about a new feature per se, but exposing a feature that about every other command line tool we ship have. So I think I'm standing on my position that it should get backpatched as a "fix". Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
