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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench
Date
Msg-id 30512.1393511793@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> 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.

Yeah, but they don't make -P take an integer argument.  It's that
little frammish that makes this problem significant.

I don't object to having the --progress switch.  I just think we
could live without a short form for it.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Another possible corruption bug in 9.3.2 or possibly a known MultiXact problem?
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: UNION ALL on partitioned tables won't use indices.