Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long
Date
Msg-id 20230713034903.GA991765@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: add non-option reordering to in-tree getopt_long
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 09:32:32AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Sure.  І did it this way in v7.

After a couple more small edits, I've committed this.  I looked through all
uses of getopt_long() in PostgreSQL earlier today, and of the programs that
accepted non-options, most accepted only one, some others accepted 2-3, and
ecpg and pg_regress accepted any number.  Given this analysis, I'm not too
worried about the O(n^2) behavior that the patch introduces.  You'd likely
need to provide an enormous number of non-options for it to be noticeable,
and I'm dubious such use-cases exist.

During my analysis, I noticed that pg_ctl contains a workaround for the
lack of argument reordering.  I think this can now be removed.  Patch
attached.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: remaining sql/json patches
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Use COPY for populating all pgbench tables