Re: [NOVICE] pg_ctl command option anomalies - Mailing list pgsql-novice

From Neha Khatri
Subject Re: [NOVICE] pg_ctl command option anomalies
Date
Msg-id CAFO0U+9SQAT2U0dS6NJ8rP+O1JTYe9XoGrdzh940qfdpom7T0w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [NOVICE] pg_ctl command option anomalies  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [NOVICE] pg_ctl command option anomalies  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-novice
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com> writes:
> Some of the pg_ctl modes do not require following options:
>   -m, -w, -t, -c, -l, -o, -p

Um ... all of those except -c and -w require an argument AFAIK.  Where did
you read that they don't?

I did not mean that they don't require an argument. What I was trying to refer is that "pg_ctl status" would not require a "-m fast", for instance. Would there be a functional difference if I execute following commands:
 
pg_ctl status -D data/ -m fast
pg_ctl status -D data/ -m smart
pg_ctl status -D data/ -m immediate

If no, then -m does not seem a valid option for "pg_ctl status".But I am allowed to execute all of the above.

Regards,
Neha

pgsql-novice by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] pg_ctl command option anomalies
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] pg_ctl command option anomalies