Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2004-11-18 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD
Some other time maybe. Meanwhile, this patch ought to make it compile more cleanly on Windows - not sure why I get errors there but not Linux. Because getopt() is normally declared in unistd.h, not getopt.h (Windows being an exception?). getopt is not in any standard Windows headers. The

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2004-11-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why does pg_resetxlog seem top be the only one of our programs that has no long form options (or at least the only one that calls getopt rather than getopt_long)? Should we make it consistent with everything else? I think just

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2004-11-17 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some other time maybe. Meanwhile, this patch ought to make it compile more cleanly on Windows - not sure why I get errors there but not Linux. The Single Unix Spec says that getopt() is supposed to be defined by unistd.h, but I guess reading the spec

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2004-11-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Some other time maybe. Meanwhile, this patch ought to make it compile more cleanly on Windows - not sure why I get errors there but not Linux. Because getopt() is normally declared in unistd.h, not getopt.h (Windows being an exception?). -- Peter Eisentraut

[HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2004-11-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Why does pg_resetxlog seem top be the only one of our programs that has no long form options (or at least the only one that calls getopt rather than getopt_long)? Should we make it consistent with everything else? I noticed this when examining a compile warning about implicit declaration of

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2004-11-07 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why does pg_resetxlog seem top be the only one of our programs that has no long form options (or at least the only one that calls getopt rather than getopt_long)? Should we make it consistent with everything else? I think just laziness on my part when

[HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2002-08-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
pg_resetxlog uses a non-standard options parsing method: The -l option requires two arguments (-l fileid seg). I propose to change this to -l fileid,seg which is the standard way to separate suboptions. Secondly, the -n option appears to be redundant with pg_controldata. Do we need it?

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2002-08-27 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: pg_resetxlog uses a non-standard options parsing method: The -l option requires two arguments (-l fileid seg). I propose to change this to -l fileid,seg which is the standard way to separate suboptions. Agreed. Secondly, the -n option appears to be redundant with

Re: [HACKERS] pg_resetxlog options

2002-08-27 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: pg_resetxlog uses a non-standard options parsing method: The -l option requires two arguments (-l fileid seg). I propose to change this to -l fileid,seg which is the standard way to separate suboptions. No objection. I think pg_upgrade uses that