Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The following patches add a -N option to psql and pgrestore.
-N seems an entirely random name for the switch ... can't we do better?
I see that -t, -T, -s, -S, -x and -X are all taken, which lets out the
obvious choices ... but I'd rather have no single-letter abbreviation at
all than one that has zero relationship to the function of the switch.
Would -1 work, or just confuse people?
Also, I don't actually see any point to this in psql, as you can
It's only pg_restore that you really need it for. Dropping the psql
part of the patch might give us a little more maneuvering room as far
as the switch name goes.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2005-12-16 19:04:58|
|Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2005-12-16 18:40:18|
|Subject: Single-Transaction Utility options|