Re: Passing connection string to pg_basebackup

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> On the other hand, discrepancies in between command line arguments
> processing in our tools are already not helping our users (even if
> pg_dump -d seems to have been fixed along the years); so much so that
> I'm having a hard time finding any upside into having a different set of
> command line argument capabilities for the same tool depending on the
> major version.

> We are not talking about a new feature per se, but exposing a feature
> that about every other command line tool we ship have. So I think I'm
> standing on my position that it should get backpatched as a "fix".

I don't think that argument holds any water at all. There would still
be differences in command line argument capabilities out there ---
they'd just be between minor versions not major ones. That's not any
easier for people to deal with. And what will you say to someone whose
application got broken by a minor-version update?

If this feature were all that critical someone would have noticed its
lack before now, anyway. So I can't get excited about back-patching.

regards, tom lane