Re: Glitch in handling of postmaster -o options - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Glitch in handling of postmaster -o options
Date
Msg-id 22912.1002845631@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Glitch in handling of postmaster -o options  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Glitch in handling of postmaster -o options
Re: Glitch in handling of postmaster -o options
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Would someone give me a status on this?

I don't think we need any code changes.  If we decide to deprecate -o
(or anything else), it's just a documentation change.  So we can argue
about it during beta ...

>> If we notify of the impending deprecation now, to actually occur in 7.3,
>> would we be best intoducing alternative option names somewhere in the
>> 7.2 beta cycle so people writing scripts for 7.2 can use the new names
>> and know their scripts will work into the future?

The alternative option names already exist, in the form of GUC
variables.  For example, "--sort-mem=NNN" could replace -S NNN.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: new GUC paramter
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] Server crash caused by CHECK on child