Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench

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.

                        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