| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |
| Date: | 2001-11-25 22:30:57 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0111252257130.609-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > This is the part that threw me off. I see in the postmaster docs under
> > > -c:
> > > On some systems it is also possible to equivalently
> > > use GNU-style long options in the form
> > > --name=value.
> >
> > > so we would have to recommend '-c sort-mem=n.'
> >
> > --sort-mem works, period. Read the code.
> >
> > That part of the docs is in error, evidently.
>
> Docs updated.
Please change it back.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-11-25 22:31:06 | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-11-25 22:29:57 | Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch? |