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

Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Date: 2001-11-26 01:50:58
Message-ID: 7399.1006739458@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> (a) did the sort_mem setting "take"?

> Sure did.  I tried a sort value too low and it complained.  

Okay, so the original bug is fixed on your version of BSD.  (Which
is what, again?)

I looked a bit at configure and realized that we have no configure
test that causes src/utils/getopt.c to be selected.  Apparently,
the *only* platform where src/utils/getopt.c is used is native WIN32,
so the "--foo" bug in it is irrelevant to the postmaster anyway.
But I'm still inclined to fix the bug.

It would be good to try to get a reading on whether there are any
current BSD distros that still have the getopt bug.  But what I'm
inclined to do is note under the description of "--foo" that there
are a few older platforms where it won't work and you have to use -c,
rather than writing the docs on the assumption that -c is what most
people need to use.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-11-26 02:32:32
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-11-26 01:44:34
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?

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