| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, chenjq(dot)jy(at)fujitsu(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17148: About --no-strict-names option and --quiet option of pg_amcheck command |
| Date: | 2021-08-18 13:42:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1426271.1629294170@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>> On 18 Aug 2021, at 13:44, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think this both of these things could be deleted and we could get rid of the --quiet option, to simplify all this.
> It simplifies the pg_amcheck code a bit, but it at the same time complicates
> the tests as they are currently written. Not sure that we want to change that
> much as this point in the 14 cycle?
It's going to become much harder to change pg_amcheck's user-visible
behavior once it's shipped in a release. Better to fix it now while
there are not backwards-compatibility concerns.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2021-08-18 13:46:20 | Re: BUG #17148: About --no-strict-names option and --quiet option of pg_amcheck command |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-08-18 12:35:06 | Re: BUG #17148: About --no-strict-names option and --quiet option of pg_amcheck command |