Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long
Date: 2023-07-13 03:49:03
Message-ID: 20230713034903.GA991765@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 09:32:32AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Sure. І did it this way in v7.

After a couple more small edits, I've committed this. I looked through all
uses of getopt_long() in PostgreSQL earlier today, and of the programs that
accepted non-options, most accepted only one, some others accepted 2-3, and
ecpg and pg_regress accepted any number. Given this analysis, I'm not too
worried about the O(n^2) behavior that the patch introduces. You'd likely
need to provide an enormous number of non-options for it to be noticeable,
and I'm dubious such use-cases exist.

During my analysis, I noticed that pg_ctl contains a workaround for the
lack of argument reordering. I think this can now be removed. Patch

Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

Attachment Content-Type Size
v8-0002-Rely-on-getopt_long-argument-reordering-in-pg_ctl.patch text/x-diff 8.1 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-07-13 03:52:49 Re: Use COPY for populating all pgbench tables
Previous Message Amit Langote 2023-07-13 03:47:27 Re: remaining sql/json patches