| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |
| Date: | 2001-11-24 22:27:53 |
| Message-ID: | 200111242227.fAOMRrj13262@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > OK, but when we recommend, we had better tell them to start using GUC
> > and not long command-line options _unless_ long options are supported on
> > their platform. Without that, there will be confusion.
>
> This is entirely irrelevant, because the postmaster and backend don't
> have any long options (except GUC variables which work anyway).
Oh, I see. We don't use long options for postmaster/postgres, just the
-c option to set a GUC value. Got it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-24 22:47:57 | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-24 22:22:20 | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |