Re: pg_ctl options

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: pg_ctl options
Date: 2007-01-07 01:14:30
Message-ID: 200701070114.l071EUX21320@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > pg_config would need short ones.
> >
> > Seems we should have some,
>
> But why? What is the use case? It's not like pg_config is a frequently
> typed command.

I thought consistency. Why do any of the commands have long and short
options?

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message elein 2007-01-07 01:40:07 Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question
Previous Message Dan Langille 2007-01-07 00:19:25 Re: PGCon 2007 Program Committee