From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Replacement for OSSP-UUID for Linux and BSD |
Date: | 2014-05-27 15:33:48 |
Message-ID: | 10901.1401204828@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem is that the long-established spelling is --with-ossp-uuid.
>> I don't think we can break that case. While we could set up something
>> like what you propose alongside it, it doesn't seem like there's any
>> advantage to doing so compared to inventing --with-foo-uuid as needed.
> I was thinking that --with-ossp-uuid would still be required to enable
> UUID generators at all; the other one just selects the implementation to
> use, which defaults to OSSP to maintain backwards compatibility. Maybe
> introduce --with-uuid and have --with-ossp-uuid a deprecated synonym of
> that.
If we were going to do it like that, I'd vote for
--with-uuid={ossp,e2fs,bsd}
with no default at present (ie you can't say just "--with-uuid",
though we'd have the option to allow that in future). But I doubt
this is better than the --with-foo-uuid spelling.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2014-05-27 16:17:03 | Re: [PATCH] Replacement for OSSP-UUID for Linux and BSD |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-05-27 15:06:41 | Re: [PATCH] Replacement for OSSP-UUID for Linux and BSD |