Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench
Date
Msg-id 18939.1393357748@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

To fix this, I propose removing the -P short form and only allowing the
long --progress form.  I won't argue that this feature is completely
useless, but for sure it's not something I'd want more often than once
in a blue moon.  So I think it does not need to have a short form; and
for sure it doesn't need a short form that's so easily confused with a
commonly used switch.

If no objections, I'll go make that change.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Changeset Extraction v7.7
Next
From: Jeremy Harris
Date:
Subject: Re: Minor performance improvement in transition to external sort