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

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRDRjVoHjXnxzxnKfk0Op6mWfBFNXHNB=irs8AFAtcNUfA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers



2014-02-25 20:49 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
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.

To fix this, I propose removing the -P short form and only allowing the
long --progress form.  I won't argue that this feature is completely
useless, but for sure it's not something I'd want more often than once
in a blue moon.  So I think it does not need to have a short form; and
for sure it doesn't need a short form that's so easily confused with a
commonly used switch.

If no objections, I'll go make that change.

+1

Pavel
 

                        regards, tom lane


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeremy Harris
Date:
Subject: Re: Minor performance improvement in transition to external sort
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench