Re: initdb's -c option behaves wrong way?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: initdb's -c option behaves wrong way?
Date: 2024-01-17 16:15:53
Message-ID: 202401171615.uzdmkozzvo6x@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2024-Jan-16, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:

> > On 28 Sep 2023, at 09:49, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I noticed that -c option of initdb behaves in an unexpected
> > manner. Identical variable names with variations in letter casing are
> > treated as distinct variables.
> >
> > $ initdb -cwork_mem=100 -cWORK_MEM=1000 -cWork_mem=2000
>
> > The original intention was apparently to overwrite the existing
> > line. Furthermore, I surmise that preserving the original letter
> > casing is preferable.
>
> Circling back to an old thread, I agree that this seems odd and the original
> thread [0] makes no mention of it being intentional.

Hmm, how about raising an error if multiple options are given targetting
the same GUC?

--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2024-01-17 16:31:06 Re: psql JSON output format
Previous Message Tristan Partin 2024-01-17 16:15:38 Re: Add pgindent test to check if codebase is correctly formatted