On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench. > I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server, > because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking > the recently added --progress option. pgbench has no way to know that > that isn't what I meant; the fact that both switches take integer > arguments doesn't help. > > To fix this, I propose removing the -P short form and only allowing the > long --progress form. I won't argue that this feature is completely > useless, but for sure it's not something I'd want more often than once > in a blue moon. So I think it does not need to have a short form; and > for sure it doesn't need a short form that's so easily confused with a > commonly used switch. > > If no objections, I'll go make that change.
Hmm. I don't have a real specific opinion on the value of this particular --progress option, but my experience is that most --progress options get a lot of use. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
