Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
Date
Msg-id 031dc90a-0d2c-69f3-b219-88197a6968f2@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-05-28 04:56, Michael Paquier wrote:
> You could also use a long option for that without a one-letter option,
> like --file-path or such, so reserving a one-letter option for a
> future, hypothetical use is not really a stopper in my opinion.  In
> consequence, I think that that it is fine to just use -f/--filenode.
> Any objections or better suggestions from other folks here?

I think -r/--relfilenode was actually a good suggestion.  Because it
doesn't actually check a *file* but potentially several files (forks,
segments).  The -f naming makes it sound like it operates on a specific
file.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Date:
Subject: Re: Add CREATE DATABASE LOCALE option
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Cleaning up and speeding up string functions