Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
> I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
> because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking
> the recently added --progress option. pgbench has no way to know that
> that isn't what I meant; the fact that both switches take integer
> arguments doesn't help.
>
> To fix this, I propose removing the -P short form and only allowing the
> long --progress form. I won't argue that this feature is completely
> useless, but for sure it's not something I'd want more often than once
> in a blue moon. So I think it does not need to have a short form; and
> for sure it doesn't need a short form that's so easily confused with a
> commonly used switch.
>
> If no objections, I'll go make that change.

Hmm. I don't have a real specific opinion on the value of this
particular --progress option, but my experience is that most
--progress options get a lot of use.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company