Re: pg_ctl - tighten command parameter checking

Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-02-23 at 21:31, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Oliver, I am going to reject this. We give them the syntax for the
> > params. I don't see a need to check for leading dash to see if they
> > forgot a param. I would like to see a more general solution that uses
> > getopt or something more robust, but moving all that checking to each
> > param just seems like a waste.
>
> I would certainly prefer to use getopt, but is that portable? Peter
> wants me to use case..esac instead of cut; I would have thought getopt
> was a lot less portable.

No, it isn't. The problem is we don't have a portable solution _and_ we
don't want to throw checks all over the place. I realize this is a
non-solution, but I guess I don't consider is a big problem.

--
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