On 11 June 2012 22:40, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On sön, 2012-06-10 at 13:43 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >>> > On tis, 2012-05-29 at 22:31 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >> Yeah, good arguments all around, i agree too :-) Next question is - >>> >> suggestions for naming of said paramter? >>> > >>> > --xlog-method=something? And/or -Xsomething, which would automatically >>> > enable -x? >>> >>> How's this? >> >> I wouldn't make -x and -X exclusive. The way I understood this is, -x >> means include xlog, and -X says how to. >> >> I guess either way of looking at it has its merits. > > I guess it's basically two ways of doing the same thing. I'm not > especially attached to either one of them, so if you think the ohter > one is better, I won't object to changing it.
+1 for not telling the user off for being explicit by stating both options. -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
