Re: Long options for pg_ctl waiting

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> writes:
>> On 09/08/2016 01:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm pretty much -1 on printing a warning. There's no ambiguity, and no
>>> real reason for us ever to remove the old spellings. Standardizing on
>>> "no-" going forward makes sense, but let's not slap people's wrists for
>>> existing usage. (Or: if it ain't broke, don't break it.)
>
>> One could also argue that 2 out of 53 "no" options omitting the dash is
>> in fact broken, and a real reason to remove them.
>
> I do not buy that. As a counter argument, consider that removing them
> would make it impossible to write a script that works with both old
> and new versions of PG. That's a mighty high price to pay for what
> is little more than pedantry.

Perhaps discussing that on another thread would be better, and I was
the one who began this thing... So I'll do it.

Vik's stuff is just to add a --no-wait and --wait long option alias on
pg_ctl. And that clearly improves the readability for users, so that's
a +1 from here. And let's just use the v1 presented at the beginning
of this thread. I agree with the feeling that standardizing things
would be better btw for such option names.
--
Michael