| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long |
| Date: | 2023-12-18 21:52:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20231218215201.GA586573@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 02:41:22PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> We just had a user complaint that seems to trace to exactly this
> bogus reporting in pg_ctl [1]. Although I was originally not
> very pleased with changing our getopt_long to do switch reordering,
> I'm now wondering if we should back-patch these changes as bug
> fixes. It's probably not worth the risk, but ...
I'm not too concerned about the risks of back-patching these commits, but
if this 19-year-old bug was really first reported today, I'd agree that
fixing it in the stable branches is probably not worth it.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-12-18 22:42:20 | Re: Clang optimiser vs preproc.c |
| Previous Message | Tristan Partin | 2023-12-18 21:34:05 | Re: Add --check option to pgindent |