Horton

Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Michael Banck <michael.banck@credativ.de>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-06-05T20:31:54Z
Lists: 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

Commits

  1. Rework options of pg_checksums options for filenode handling