Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.21.1905270819080.24257@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Michael-san, > 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" Fine with me, I was not particularly happy with "relfilenode", but just picked it up for consistency with -r. > I would also switch to the long option name in the tests at the same > time, this makes the perl scripts easier to follow. Ok. Attached. I've used both -f & --filenode in the test to check that the renaming was ok. I have reordered the options in the documentation so that they appear in alphabetical order, as for some reason --progress was out of it. -- Fabien.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: