Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
Date: 2019-05-27 08:05:12
Message-ID: 20190527080512.GB25901@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:22:42AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The original patch used -o in pg_verify_checksums, the discussion of which
> started in the below mail:
>
> https://postgr.es/m/20180228194242.qbjasdtwm2yj5rqg%40alvherre.pgsql
>
> Since -f was already used for “force check”, -r ended up being used. Now that
> there no longer is a -f flag in pg_checksums, it can be renamed.

Interesting point. Thanks for sharing.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Banck 2019-05-27 08:17:43 Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
Previous Message Amit Langote 2019-05-27 08:04:33 Re: BEFORE UPDATE trigger on postgres_fdw table not work