Brent Verner wrote:
> [2002-01-03 14:19] Bruce Momjian said:
> | 
> | Actually, we can just do:
> | 
> | >      *)
> | >      dbname=$1
> | >      [ "$#" -ne 1 ] && usage=1
> | 
> | Meaning if they have anything after the dbname, it is an error.  This
> | catches flags _after_ the dbname.  Seems most of the script have this
> | problem.  If people want it fixed, I can easily do it;  just give me to
> | go-ahead.
> 
> +1
> 
>   I can't see a reason to /not/ fix something this simple for the 7.2 
> release.  In general, I think it's best to fix things like this[1]
> "on sight" as opposed to queueing them in TODO where they /might/ sit
> untouched through another release cycle.
> 
> [1] meaning problems that require little effort to fix, and whose
>     solutions are /very/ localized.

OK, one more +1 and I will get to it.

-- 
  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

• Re: More problem with scripts at 2002-01-03 19:51:46 from Brent Verner

Responses

• Re: More problem with scripts at 2002-01-03 20:58:02 from Tom Lane
• Re: More problem with scripts at 2002-01-03 22:33:42 from Peter Eisentraut

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Hannu Krosing	Date: 2002-01-03 19:55:10
	Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:	From: Brent Verner	Date: 2002-01-03 19:51:46
	Subject: Re: More problem with scripts