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

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench
Date
Msg-id 20140227135454.GM4759@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Fabien COELHO wrote:

> >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.
> 
> ISTM that this is an unfortunate but unlikely mistake, as "-p" is
> used in all postgresql commands to signify the port number (psql,
> pg_dump, pg_basebackup, createdb, ...).

Plus other tools already use -P for progress, such as rsync.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Defining macro LSNOID for pg_lsn in pg_type.h
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Another possible corruption bug in 9.3.2 or possibly a known MultiXact problem?