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.2.21.1905271616270.24257@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 |
Bonjour Michael, > + <varlistentry> > + <term><option>-f <replaceable>filenode</replaceable></option></term> > + <term><option>--filenode=<replaceable>filenode</replaceable></option></term> > + <listitem> > + <para> > + Only validate checksums in the relation with specified relation file node. > + </para> > Two nits. I would just have been careful about the number of > characters in the line within the <para> markup. And we use > extensively "filenode" in the docs. Ok. > + [ 'pg_checksums', '--enable', '-filenode', '1234', '-D', $pgdata ], > This fails, but not for the reason it is written for. Indeed. command_fails() is a little too simplistic, it should really check that the error message is there. > It looks strange to not order --filenode alphabetically in --help. Forgot, it stayed at the r position for no good reason. > With all these issues cleaned up, I got the attached. Does that look > fine? (I ran pgperltidy and pgindent on top of it.) Works for me. Doc build is ok as well. -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: