Re: Glitch in handling of postmaster -o options

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Would someone give me a status on this?
> 
> I don't think we need any code changes.  If we decide to deprecate -o
> (or anything else), it's just a documentation change.  So we can argue
> about it during beta ...
> 
> >> If we notify of the impending deprecation now, to actually occur in 7.3,
> >> would we be best intoducing alternative option names somewhere in the
> >> 7.2 beta cycle so people writing scripts for 7.2 can use the new names
> >> and know their scripts will work into the future?
> 
> The alternative option names already exist, in the form of GUC
> variables.  For example, "--sort-mem=NNN" could replace -S NNN.

OK, the long options already exist and people can use those in 7.2
without the -o, right?

Do you have to have long option support in your OS to use them?  Do we
want to have options that _don't_ have single-letter versions? 
Certainly we can't have single-letter versions of all the GUC options
but do we remove ones that were already there?  I guess we could.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026