Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Date: 2001-11-25 00:15:58
Message-ID: 200111250015.fAP0Fwu02586@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > This is the part that threw me off. I see in the postmaster docs under
> > -c:
> > On some systems it is also possible to equivalently
> > use GNU-style long options in the form
> > --name=value.
>
> > so we would have to recommend '-c sort-mem=n.'
>
> --sort-mem works, period. Read the code.
>
> That part of the docs is in error, evidently.

Docs updated.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-11-25 02:40:25 anoncvs busted (was Re: v7.2b3 packages rebuilt ...)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-11-24 23:01:13 Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?