Re: [PATCH] add long options to pgbench (submission 1)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add long options to pgbench (submission 1)
Date: 2013-06-25 16:15:11
Message-ID: 20130625161511.GC7716@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-06-25 12:11:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> >>> Please fix that and re-send the patch.
> >> Find attached diff wrt current master.
> > Thanks.
>
> I would like to solicit opinions on whether this is a good idea. I
> understand that the patch author thinks it's a good idea, and I don't
> have a strong position either way. But I want to hear what other
> people think.
>
> Anyone have an opinion?

+1. When writing scripts I like to use the long options because that
makes it easier to understand some time later. I don't really see a
reason not to do this.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-06-25 16:15:28 Re: [PATCH] add long options to pgbench (submission 1)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-06-25 16:15:01 Re: isolationtester and 'specs' subdirectory