Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_ctl options checking

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pg_ctl options checking
Date: 2006-04-17 19:12:21
Message-ID: 4264.1145301141@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-04-17 19:14:27
Subject: Re: pg_ctl options checking
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-04-17 19:04:39
Subject: Re: pg_ctl options checking

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group