On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Vik Fearing <v...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: >> On 09/08/2016 01:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I'm pretty much -1 on printing a warning. There's no ambiguity, and no >>> real reason for us ever to remove the old spellings. Standardizing on >>> "no-" going forward makes sense, but let's not slap people's wrists for >>> existing usage. (Or: if it ain't broke, don't break it.) > >> One could also argue that 2 out of 53 "no" options omitting the dash is >> in fact broken, and a real reason to remove them. > > I do not buy that. As a counter argument, consider that removing them > would make it impossible to write a script that works with both old > and new versions of PG. That's a mighty high price to pay for what > is little more than pedantry.
Perhaps discussing that on another thread would be better, and I was the one who began this thing... So I'll do it. Vik's stuff is just to add a --no-wait and --wait long option alias on pg_ctl. And that clearly improves the readability for users, so that's a +1 from here. And let's just use the v1 presented at the beginning of this thread. I agree with the feeling that standardizing things would be better btw for such option names. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers