From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump, pg_basebackup don't error out with wrong option for "--format" |
Date: | 2021-11-25 05:52:11 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACX6KaP_Y0qwAYApK48c3UR0=0OY+Pt=SVDjiYh9fspWAA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:02 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:44 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed that the pg_dump and pg_basebackup are not erroring out when
> > "--fo"/"--for"/"--form"/"--forma"/" are specified(use cases 1 - 4, 7 -
> > 9) whereas it fails if a pattern that doesn't match with "format" is
> > specified (use case 5, 10). This seems to be true only for "--format"
> > option, for other options it just errors out (use case 6). Why is the
> > behaviour for "--format" isn't consistent?
> >
> > Is it something expected? Is the option parsing logic here buggy?
>
> I think for parsing we use getopt_long(), as per that if you use the
> prefix of the string and that is not conflicting with any other option
> then that is allowed. So --fo, --for all are accepted, --f will not
> be accepted because --file and --format will conflict, --foo is also
> not allowed because it is not a valid prefix string of any valid
> option string.
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks.
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amul Sul | 2021-11-25 06:08:42 | Re: prevent immature WAL streaming |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-11-25 05:32:04 | Re: pg_dump, pg_basebackup don't error out with wrong option for "--format" |