Re: pg_ctl and -h/help - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: pg_ctl and -h/help
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqTyUcY4k0iBg0vdbBP2C6bA0ucxKHcm4PV7e72jMCikOQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_ctl and -h/help  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Agreed --- attached patch applied.  I also noticed that we sometimes
> test for -? then --help, but other times do things in the opposite
> order, and the same for -V/--version, so I made that consistent.
>
> However, I also noticed that while we document -? before --help, we test
> for --help before -?, and the same for -V/--version.  Should I make
> those even more consistent by always testing for the single-letter
> option first?
I am not sure if this is worth doing for all the binaries, the output
result and the return code being the same in all the cases. Having an
undocumented -h was somehow different because it caused the spec of
pg_ctl and friends to behave differently than what was documented. My
2c.
--
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nicholas White
Date:
Subject: Request for Patch Feedback: Lag & Lead Window Functions Can Ignore Nulls
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY