Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Date: 2001-11-24 22:22:20
Message-ID: 120.1006640540@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> OK, but when we recommend, we had better tell them to start using GUC
> and not long command-line options _unless_ long options are supported on
> their platform. Without that, there will be confusion.

This is entirely irrelevant, because the postmaster and backend don't
have any long options (except GUC variables which work anyway).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-11-24 22:27:53 Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-11-24 22:18:52 Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?