Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen
Date
Msg-id 4F8DFEFA.6080905@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 04/17/2012 07:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 04/17/2012 07:08 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net>  
>> wrote:
>>> Don't override arguments set via options with positional arguments.
>>>
>>> A number of utility programs were rather careless about paremeters
>>> that can be set via both an option argument and a positional
>>> argument. This leads to results which can violate the Principal
>>> Of Least Astonishment. These changes refuse to use positional
>>> arguments to override settings that have been made via positional
>>> arguments. The changes are backpatched to all live branches.
>>>
>>> Branch
>>> ------
>>> REL8_3_STABLE
>> Uh, isn't it kind of a bad idea to back-patch something like this?  It
>> seems like a behavior change.
>
>
> It was discussed. I think the previous behaviour is a bug. It can't be 
> sane to be allowed to do:
>
>    initdb -D foo bar
>
>
>


You know, I could have sworn it was discussed, but when I look back I 
see it wasn't. I must have been remembering the recent logging protocol bug.

I'll revert it if people want, although I still think it's a bug.

cheers

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Don't override arguments set via options with positional argumen
Next
From: Ants Aasma
Date:
Subject: Re: Gsoc2012 idea, tablesample