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

Hi,

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:22:42AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 27 May 2019, at 03:52, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > pg_verify_checksums has been using -r for whatever reason, but as we
> > do a renaming of the binary for v12 we could just fix that
> > inconsistency as well.
>
> 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.

Before we switch to -f out of consistency with oid2name, we should
consider Magnus' argument from
CABUevEzoeXaxbcYmMZsNF1aqdCwovys7-ChqCuGRY5+nsQZFew(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com IMO:

|I have no problem with changing it to -r. -f seems a bit wrong to me,
|as it might read as a file. And in the future we might want to implement
|the ability to take full filename (with path), in which case it would
|make sense to use -f for that.

Cheers,

Michael

--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax: +49 2166 9901-100
Email: michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de

credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer

Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz