| 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 22:47:57 |
| Message-ID: | 200111242247.fAOMlv715774@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:
> > So we just mention it is going away, but there are duplicates so they
> > can't start removing -o yet?
>
> Well, we'd have to give a table of recommended translations, eg
>
> -o '-S n' => --sort-mem=n
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.'
--
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 | Tom Lane | 2001-11-24 23:01:13 | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-24 22:27:53 | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |