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

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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Date: 2001-11-25 22:30:57
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0111252257130.609-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian writes:

> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > This is the part that threw me off.  I see in the postmaster docs under
> > > -c:
> > >       On some systems it is also possible to equivalently
> > >       use    GNU-style	 long	options   in   the   form
> > >       --name=value.
> >
> > > so we would have to recommend '-c sort-mem=n.'
> >
> > --sort-mem works, period.  Read the code.
> >
> > That part of the docs is in error, evidently.
>
> Docs updated.

Please change it back.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-11-25 22:31:06
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-11-25 22:29:57
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?

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