Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 031dc90a-0d2c-69f3-b219-88197a6968f2@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-05-28 04:56, Michael Paquier wrote: > You could also use a long option for that without a one-letter option, > like --file-path or such, so reserving a one-letter option for a > future, hypothetical use is not really a stopper in my opinion. In > consequence, I think that that it is fine to just use -f/--filenode. > Any objections or better suggestions from other folks here? I think -r/--relfilenode was actually a good suggestion. Because it doesn't actually check a *file* but potentially several files (forks, segments). The -f naming makes it sound like it operates on a specific file. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: