On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 23:26 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:24:08PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Why was this change made?
> >
> > I asked Andrew and he had no idea why a 'set -x' would be in the script.
> > I ran the script and saw the commands being echoed. Was that
> > intentional?
>
> yes
>
> > If so, I can add it back,
>
> please
>
> > but it would be good to add a
> > comment as to why it was being used, because Andrew and I had no idea,
> > and thought it was a mistake.
>
> Well, it is so you can see what's being run in case you see failures or
> odd output. It's usually fairly self-evident what set -x does, but feel
> free to comment it.
OK, added, with a comment. When the script ends, the set -x is a little
verbose for my liking. It makes it look like something is wrong ---
perhaps we should set +x there.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +