Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl options
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Certainly postgres has plenty of long ones. And I don't know why > I don't see them. postgres/postmaster accept --any-guc-variable=value. AFAIR all the single-letter options these days are equivalent to one of those. There's not anything else to do there, except perhaps fix the documentation (I'm not clear on why Table 17-1 is where it is and not on the postgres command reference page). I can't get excited about inventing short options for pg_config. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl options
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 20:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > pg_config would need short ones. > > > > > > Seems we should have some, > > > > But why? What is the use case? It's not like pg_config is a frequently > > typed command. > > I thought consistency. Why do any of the commands have long and short > options? That would be my argument. Consistency is good. Joshua D. Drake > > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl options
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > pg_config would need short ones. > > > > Seems we should have some, > > But why? What is the use case? It's not like pg_config is a frequently > typed command. I thought consistency. Why do any of the commands have long and short options? -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl options
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > pg_config would need short ones. > > Seems we should have some, But why? What is the use case? It's not like pg_config is a frequently typed command. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl options
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Added to TODO: > > > > * Make consistent use of long/short command options --- pg_ctl needs > > long ones, pg_config doesn't have short ones, postgres doesn't have > > enough long ones, etc. > > Certainly postgres has plenty of long ones. And I don't know why I don't see them. > pg_config would need short ones. Seems we should have some, though you could make the case it has too many options to support single letters. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl options
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Added to TODO: > > * Make consistent use of long/short command options --- pg_ctl needs > long ones, pg_config doesn't have short ones, postgres doesn't have > enough long ones, etc. Certainly postgres has plenty of long ones. And I don't know why pg_config would need short ones. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl options
Added to TODO: * Make consistent use of long/short command options --- pg_ctl needs long ones, pg_config doesn't have short ones, postgres doesn't have enough long ones, etc. --- Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > I notice that quite a few pg_ctl options have no long form equivalents, > namely these: NopPwW > > Also, none of the long forms seems to be documented at all. > > Should this be cleared up (maybe a nice first project for lurking new > contributors)?\ > > If we don't want long forms for some reason, then a comment in the code > saying why would make sense. > > cheers > > andrew > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > >http://archives.postgresql.org -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl options
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Should this be cleared up (maybe a nice first project for lurking new > contributors)?\ > Maybe. > If we don't want long forms for some reason, then a comment in the code > saying why would make sense. > I don't see a strong reason for not to do it. But if you look closely at the postgres binaries you'll notice some "inconsistencies" e.g., pg_ctl doesn't have long options, pg_config doesn't have short options, postgres almost don't have long options. I agree that it deserves a cleanup but I don't know if it's worth to do. -- Euler Taveira de Oliveira http://www.timbira.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
[HACKERS] pg_ctl options
I notice that quite a few pg_ctl options have no long form equivalents, namely these: NopPwW Also, none of the long forms seems to be documented at all. Should this be cleared up (maybe a nice first project for lurking new contributors)?\ If we don't want long forms for some reason, then a comment in the code saying why would make sense. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
