Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...]

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Daniel Gustafsson
Тема
Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...]
Дата
в 17:47:57
Msg-id
18D6F77A-A3FD-4DEE-8C79-D719F56D262F@yesql.se
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...] Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...] Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...] Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...] Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...] Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...] Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...] Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
> On 17 Feb 2026, at 02:08, Peter Smith  wrote:

> Make the "option" part consistent in the synopses of all Server Applications:
> 
> 1. "[option]" should be "[option...]"

Only if the application can take multiple options.  pg_controldata can for
example only take a single parameter so [option] is correct there.

> 2. It should be first

Why?  I think it makes more sense to list [option...] after required parameters
just like how pg_upgrade does it.  We might not be consistent as is, but I'm
not sure it's a net improvement to always list it first as opposed to what we
have.

--
Daniel Gustafsson



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Daniel Gustafsson
Дата:
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
FAQ