On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The documentation included in this patch doesn't really make it clear >> why -g is different from or better than -c. > > I wrote some text. But needs some work of native speaker.
It does. It would be nice if some kind reviewer could help volunteer to clean that up. Upthread, it was suggested that this option be called -C rather than -g, and personally I like that better. I don't really think there's anything "grouped" about the -g option; it's just an upgraded version of -c that does what we probably should have had -C do from the beginning, but now don't want to change out of a concern for backward-compatibility. I would propose to change not only the user-visible option name but all of the internal things that call this "group" or "grouped". Maybe introduce ACT_COMMAND_LINE or similar instead of ACT_GROUP_COMMANDS. Whatever else we do here, -1 on having both _MainLoop and MainLoop as function names. That can't be anything but confusing. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers