Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
Дата
Msg-id 20190527015204.GC1963@paquier.xyz
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Ответы Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 08:35:30AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Probably? Attached a patch.

No objections with adding a long option for that stuff.  But I do have
an objection with the naming because we have another tool able to work
on relfilenodes:
$ oid2name --help | grep FILE
  -f, --filenode=FILENODE    show info for table with given file node

In this case, long options are new as of 1aaf532 which is recent, but
-f is around for a much longer time.

Perhaps we should use the same mapping for consistency?
pg_verify_checksums has been using -r for whatever reason, but as we
do a renaming of the binary for v12 we could just fix that
inconsistency as well.  Hence I would suggest that for the option
description:
"-f, --filenode=FILENODE"

I would also switch to the long option name in the tests at the same
time, this makes the perl scripts easier to follow.
--
Michael

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Shohei Mochizuki
Дата:
Сообщение: BEFORE UPDATE trigger on postgres_fdw table not work
Следующее
От: Michael Paquier
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY