Re: pg_ctl options

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: pg_ctl options
Date: 2007-01-07 02:10:58
Message-ID: 1168135858.869.5.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 20:14 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > pg_config would need short ones.
> > >
> > > Seems we should have some,
> >
> > But why? What is the use case? It's not like pg_config is a frequently
> > typed command.
>
> I thought consistency. Why do any of the commands have long and short
> options?

That would be my argument. Consistency is good.

Joshua D. Drake

>
>
--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-01-07 02:11:44 Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-01-07 02:09:17 Re: InitPostgres and flatfiles question