From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:41:22 |
Message-ID: | 4007895.1702928482@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:38:42PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Take the following examples of client programs that accept one non-option:
>>
>> ~$ pg_resetwal a b c
>> pg_resetwal: error: too many command-line arguments (first is "b")
>> pg_resetwal: hint: Try "pg_resetwal --help" for more information.
>>
>> Yet pg_ctl gives:
>>
>> ~$ pg_ctl start a b c
>> pg_ctl: too many command-line arguments (first is "start")
>> Try "pg_ctl --help" for more information.
>>
>> In this example, isn't "a" the first extra non-option that should be
>> reported?
> Good point. This is interpreting "first" as being the first option
> that's invalid. Here my first impression was that pg_ctl got that
> right, where "first" refers to the first subcommand that would be
> valid. Objection withdrawn.
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 ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-12-18 19:45:46 | Re: Built-in CTYPE provider |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-12-18 18:58:17 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |