| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
| Date: | 2006-10-07 21:21:12 |
| Message-ID: | 200610071421.12194.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> I kinda like that, because it makes the behavior completely independent
> of switch ordering, which seems like a good property to preserve.
> Anyone else have an opinion pro or con?
The only "con" argument I can think of is that "tar" and "rsync", whose syntax
is familiar to a lot of sysadmins, apply switches left-to-right.
However, I don't feel that that is a compelling argument. The include/exclude
switch order processing is something I've always *hated* about tar and has
messed me up more times than I can count. Also, Windows users could care
less if we behave like tar.
So +1 to go with orderless switching.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-07 21:29:03 | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-10-07 21:18:49 | Man pages |