Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> I just wasted some time puzzling over strange results from pgbench.
>>> I eventually realized that I'd been testing against the wrong server,
>>> because rather than "-p 65432" I'd typed "-P 65432", thereby invoking
>>> the recently added --progress option. pgbench has no way to know that
>>> that isn't what I meant; the fact that both switches take integer
>>> arguments doesn't help.

>> ISTM that this is an unfortunate but unlikely mistake, as "-p" is
>> used in all postgresql commands to signify the port number (psql,
>> pg_dump, pg_basebackup, createdb, ...).

> Plus other tools already use -P for progress, such as rsync.

Yeah, but they don't make -P take an integer argument. It's that
little frammish that makes this problem significant.

I don't object to having the --progress switch. I just think we
could live without a short form for it.

regards, tom lane