Re: Why does pg_checksums -r not have a long option?
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-05-27T06:32:21Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- checksums-long-option-2.patch (text/x-diff) patch
Hello Michael-san, > No objections with adding a long option for that stuff. But I do have > an objection with the naming because we have another tool able to work > on relfilenodes: > $ oid2name --help | grep FILE > -f, --filenode=FILENODE show info for table with given file node > > In this case, long options are new as of 1aaf532 which is recent, but > -f is around for a much longer time. > > Perhaps we should use the same mapping for consistency? > > pg_verify_checksums has been using -r for whatever reason, but as we > do a renaming of the binary for v12 we could just fix that > inconsistency as well. Hence I would suggest that for the option > description: > "-f, --filenode=FILENODE" Fine with me, I was not particularly happy with "relfilenode", but just picked it up for consistency with -r. > I would also switch to the long option name in the tests at the same > time, this makes the perl scripts easier to follow. Ok. Attached. I've used both -f & --filenode in the test to check that the renaming was ok. I have reordered the options in the documentation so that they appear in alphabetical order, as for some reason --progress was out of it. -- Fabien.
Commits
-
Rework options of pg_checksums options for filenode handling
- fc115d0f9fc6 12.0 landed