Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Revised patch attached, doing just this. I will apply it soon unless
>> there are objections.
>>
>
> Probably a good idea to check defined(HAVE_GETRLIMIT) && defined(RLIMIT_CORE),
> rather than naively assuming every getrlimit implementation supports
> that particular setting. Also, should the -c option exist but just not
> do anything if the platform doesn't support it? As is, you're making it
> impossible to just specify -c without worrying if it does anything.
>
> The documentation fails to list the long form of the switch
> (--corefiles, which should probably really be --core-files for consistency).
> There's a typo in this message, too:
>
> + _("%s: cannot set core size,: disallowed by hard limit.\n"),
>
>
>
OK, I'll fix all this. Thanks.
cheers
andrew