Re: pg_ctl options checking

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> For a command as significant as pg_ctl, I can't see how making it
>> _convenient_ is a good argument.

> Well, loss of convenience is one argument in opposition to this change
> but I don't see any argument in _favor_ of this change other than
> "let's reject these option combinations", some of which seem perfectly
> valid.

Ignoring irrelevant arguments is a time-honored Unix tradition that
contributes significantly to the usefulness of cc, for example.
Would you be happy if cc rejected -D when being used only to link, say?

I hadn't thought about this when Simon submitted the patch, but I'm
with Peter: we should not reject arguments just because they're not
relevant. If you can make a case that particular combinations strongly
suggest user error, then let's reject those cases ... but not a blanket
prohibition.

regards, tom lane