Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Date: 2001-11-24 23:01:13
Message-ID: 259.1006642873@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> This is the part that threw me off. I see in the postmaster docs under
> -c:
> On some systems it is also possible to equivalently
> use GNU-style long options in the form
> --name=value.

> so we would have to recommend '-c sort-mem=n.'

--sort-mem works, period. Read the code.

That part of the docs is in error, evidently.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-11-25 00:15:58 Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-11-24 22:47:57 Re: Call for objections: deprecate postmaster -o switch?