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'
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 tho
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 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)---
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
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
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 tha
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 clo
