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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, 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: 2019-05-28 02:56:48
Message-ID: 20190528025648.GA1348@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:17:43AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> 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.

You could also use a long option for that without a one-letter option,
like --file-path or such, so reserving a one-letter option for a
future, hypothetical use is not really a stopper in my opinion. In
consequence, I think that that it is fine to just use -f/--filenode.
Any objections or better suggestions from other folks here?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-05-28 03:54:34 Re: BEFORE UPDATE trigger on postgres_fdw table not work
Previous Message Gurjeet Singh 2019-05-28 02:25:37 Fix comment in pgcrypto tests