Tom Lane writes: > It'd be better if we could get it right the first time, with the > understanding that the output format is not very negotiable at this > late hour. But as best I can tell, most of the unhappiness is with the > design of the switch set, which is not something I want to defend in > detail. There's a lot there that isn't needed for the RHDB tool as I > understand it, and I think that altering the switches used to get the > output that the tool does need would still be a feasible change from the > tool's point of view.
I have some more questions: - When the set of GUC properties (when to set, how to set, etc.) change, what is the upgrade path? Remember that we change those a lot. - Who is going to maintain the descriptions in this very special "GNU trick" format? I can happily agree if we had a short description that is shown in an overview list, and an long description that is shown when the option is opened up in its own window, but I don't agree with with the current format. At least not in the way it was explained to me, maybe I'm misunderstanding. > I would be in favor of simplifying the supported switch set to the > minimum needed by Red Hat's tool (the equivalent of -G -M if I > understood Fernando correctly), and re-adding complexity in future > when and if it's shown to be needed. But we need to make a decision > about this now. Preferably yesterday. I propose we rip out everything except --help-config -m that shows the information in the "machine-readable" tab separated format without headers. If someone can answer the two questions above. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly