Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types
Date
Msg-id 200610071421.12194.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom,

> I kinda like that, because it makes the behavior completely independent
> of switch ordering, which seems like a good property to preserve.
> Anyone else have an opinion pro or con?

The only "con" argument I can think of is that "tar" and "rsync", whose syntax 
is familiar to a lot of sysadmins, apply switches left-to-right.  

However, I don't feel that that is a compelling argument.  The include/exclude 
switch order processing is something I've always *hated* about tar and has 
messed me up more times than I can count.  Also, Windows users could care 
less if we behave like tar.

So +1 to go with orderless switching.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Man pages
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types