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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
Date
Msg-id 20190527015204.GC1963@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 08:35:30AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Probably? Attached a patch.

No objections with adding a long option for that stuff.  But I do have
an objection with the naming because we have another tool able to work
on relfilenodes:
$ oid2name --help | grep FILE
  -f, --filenode=FILENODE    show info for table with given file node

In this case, long options are new as of 1aaf532 which is recent, but
-f is around for a much longer time.

Perhaps we should use the same mapping for consistency?
pg_verify_checksums has been using -r for whatever reason, but as we
do a renaming of the binary for v12 we could just fix that
inconsistency as well.  Hence I would suggest that for the option
description:
"-f, --filenode=FILENODE"

I would also switch to the long option name in the tests at the same
time, this makes the perl scripts easier to follow.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shohei Mochizuki
Date:
Subject: BEFORE UPDATE trigger on postgres_fdw table not work
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY