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

Re: Single-Transaction Utility options

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Date: 2005-12-16 18:59:03
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The following patches add a -N option to psql and pgrestore.

-N seems an entirely random name for the switch ... can't we do better?
I see that -t, -T, -s, -S, -x and -X are all taken, which lets out the
obvious choices ... but I'd rather have no single-letter abbreviation at
all than one that has zero relationship to the function of the switch.
Would -1 work, or just confuse people?

Also, I don't actually see any point to this in psql, as you can
always do
	\i file
It's only pg_restore that you really need it for.  Dropping the psql
part of the patch might give us a little more maneuvering room as far
as the switch name goes.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-12-16 19:04:58
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-12-16 18:40:18
Subject: Single-Transaction Utility options

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group