Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen
Date
Msg-id 1334757824.29544.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On ons, 2012-04-18 at 09:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > My vote is to revert this altogether and leave it be.  In the
> > alternative, make it an error.
> 
> You mean in HEAD too?  I don't agree with that, for sure.  What this
> patch is accomplishing is to make sure that the less-commonly-used
> programs have similar command-line-parsing behavior to psql and pg_dump,
> where we long ago realized that failure to check this carefully could
> result in very confusing behavior.  (Especially on machines where
> getopt is willing to rearrange the command line.)

OK, if you care strongly about that, make it an error.  But don't just
ignore things.

> I agree with Andrew that this is a bug fix.  I can see the argument
> for not applying it to back branches, but not for declaring that it's
> not a bug.

We shouldn't be backpatching things that are merely confusing.  It works
as designed at the time, after all.  Improvements belong in master.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: psql: tab completions for 'WITH'
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug tracker tool we need