Re: pg_walsummary, Character-not-present-in-option
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: btsugieyuusuke <btsugieyuusuke@oss.nttdata.com>,
pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2024-10-03T17:19:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 12:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > btsugieyuusuke <btsugieyuusuke@oss.nttdata.com> writes: > >> Therefore, shouldn't “f:” and “w:” be removed? > > Looks like that to me too. Pushed. Thanks to Yusuke-san for the report and patch and to Tom for the commit. I vaguely recall that early in the development of pg_walsummary I thought it was going to need more options than and then realized that some of them weren't necessary. Looks like I did a bad job removing the leftovers; thanks for cleaning it up. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Remove incorrect entries in pg_walsummary's getopt_long call.
- 6596a8c8603d 17.1 landed
- 04c64e3fb35a 18.0 landed