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

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.10.1402270908130.24661@sto
Whole thread Raw
In response to Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello Tom.

> 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, ...).

> To fix this, I propose removing the -P short form and only allowing the
> long --progress form.

I do not think that such a "fix" is really needed. This logic would lead 
to remove many short options from many commands in postgresql and 
elsewhere : -t/-T in pgbench, -s/-S in psql, and so on, -l/-L -r/-R -s/-S 
in ls...

Moreover, I use -P more often than -p:-)

-- 
Fabien.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench