On 2014-10-04 09:24:07 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > On 2014-10-03 14:02:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > > I do wonder whether --create/--drop aren't somewhat wierd for > > > > pg_receivexlog. It's not that clear what it means. It'd be ugly, but we > > > > could rename them --create-slot/drop-slot. > > > > > > +1 on doing it, -1 on it being ugly. > > > > The reason I'm calling it uglyu is that it's different from > > pg_recvlogical. We could change it there, too? A bit late, but probably > > better than having a discrepancy forever > > > I'm on board to make things as consistent as possible between both > utilities, the only reason why --create/--drop are used in my patch is for > the sake of consistency btw. 9.4 ship has not sailed yet, and IMO it is > important from the user prospective if options are a maximum consistent > between pg_receivexlog and pg_recvlogical. That would be even better if > change is done before 9.4beta3 shows up, and I doubt that there are many > users using the --create/--drop options already.
Any opinion on whether whe should accept both --create and --create-slot or only the latter? Accepting both would get rid of problems due to potential usages of the old syntax - and it's easier to type... I don't really care. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
