On 27 May 2014 18:33:48 EEST, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The problem is that the long-established spelling is
>--with-ossp-uuid.
>>> I don't think we can break that case. While we could set up
>something
>>> like what you propose alongside it, it doesn't seem like there's any
>>> advantage to doing so compared to inventing --with-foo-uuid as
>needed.
>
>> I was thinking that --with-ossp-uuid would still be required to
>enable
>> UUID generators at all; the other one just selects the implementation
>to
>> use, which defaults to OSSP to maintain backwards compatibility.
>Maybe
>> introduce --with-uuid and have --with-ossp-uuid a deprecated synonym
>of
>> that.
>
>If we were going to do it like that, I'd vote for
>
> --with-uuid={ossp,e2fs,bsd}
>
>with no default at present (ie you can't say just "--with-uuid",
>though we'd have the option to allow that in future). But I doubt
>this is better than the --with-foo-uuid spelling.
FWIW, --with-uuid=foo looks much clearer to me.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
