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

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 08:32:21AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I've used both -f & --filenode in the test to check that the renaming was
> ok. I have reordered the options in the documentation so that they appear in
> alphabetical order, as for some reason --progress was out of it.

No objection to clean up this at the same time.

+ <varlistentry>
+ <term><option>-f <replaceable>filenode</replaceable></option></term>
+ <term><option>--filenode=<replaceable>filenode</replaceable></option></term>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>
+ Only validate checksums in the relation with specified relation file node.
+ </para>
Two nits. I would just have been careful about the number of
characters in the line within the <para> markup. And we use
extensively "filenode" in the docs. So the description would become
as follows:
Only validate checksums in the relation with filenode
<replaceable>filenode</replaceable>.

+ [ 'pg_checksums', '--enable', '-filenode', '1234', '-D', $pgdata ],
This fails, but not for the reason it is written for.

It looks strange to not order --filenode alphabetically in --help.

With all these issues cleaned up, I got the attached. Does that look
fine? (I ran pgperltidy and pgindent on top of it.)
--
Michael