Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench

Hello Tom.

> I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
> I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
> because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking
> the recently added --progress option.  pgbench has no way to know that
> that isn't what I meant; the fact that both switches take integer
> arguments doesn't help.

ISTM that this is an unfortunate but unlikely mistake, as "-p" is used in 
all postgresql commands to signify the port number (psql, pg_dump, 
pg_basebackup, createdb, ...).

> To fix this, I propose removing the -P short form and only allowing the
> long --progress form.

I do not think that such a "fix" is really needed. This logic would lead 
to remove many short options from many commands in postgresql and 
elsewhere : -t/-T in pgbench, -s/-S in psql, and so on, -l/-L -r/-R -s/-S 
in ls...

Moreover, I use -P more often than -p:-)

-- 
Fabien.