| From: | Serguei Mokhov <mokhov(at)cs(dot)concordia(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: more adequate usage msg: pg_controldata.diff |
| Date: | 2003-01-10 00:46:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1042159602.3e1e17f27d4dd@mailhost.cs.concordia.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
[haven't been following the lists for quite some time]
Quoting Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Actually, it is optional for pg_controldata. The usage message is
> technically correct as it stands because pg_controldata accepts at most
> one argument (either --help, --version, or a DATADIR name).
pg_controldata [ DATADIR | options ]
Will the above make more happy people?
Aren't there more serious issues to worry about? ;-)
-s
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Serguei Mokhov | 2003-01-10 00:51:18 | Re: more adequate usage msg: pg_controldata.diff |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-01-09 23:30:59 | Re: more adequate usage msg: pg_controldata.diff |