2015-11-05 17:27 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>:

> 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.

-C is good, and if there will not by any objection, I am for it

> Whatever else we do here, -1 on having both _MainLoop and MainLoop as
> function names.  That can't be anything but confusing.

I'll have free time at weekend, and I'll check it.



> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to