| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? |
| Date: | 2019-05-27 01:52:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20190527015204.GC1963@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 08:35:30AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Probably? Attached a patch.
No objections with adding a long option for that stuff. But I do have
an objection with the naming because we have another tool able to work
on relfilenodes:
$ oid2name --help | grep FILE
-f, --filenode=FILENODE show info for table with given file node
In this case, long options are new as of 1aaf532 which is recent, but
-f is around for a much longer time.
Perhaps we should use the same mapping for consistency?
pg_verify_checksums has been using -r for whatever reason, but as we
do a renaming of the binary for v12 we could just fix that
inconsistency as well. Hence I would suggest that for the option
description:
"-f, --filenode=FILENODE"
I would also switch to the long option name in the tests at the same
time, this makes the perl scripts easier to follow.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-27 01:54:18 | Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Previous Message | Shohei Mochizuki | 2019-05-27 01:52:02 | BEFORE UPDATE trigger on postgres_fdw table not work |