2015-11-05 17:27 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The documentation included in this patch doesn't really make it clear > >> why -g is different from or better than -c. > > > > I wrote some text. But needs some work of native speaker. > > It does. It would be nice if some kind reviewer could help volunteer > to clean that up. > > Upthread, it was suggested that this option be called -C rather than > -g, and personally I like that better. I don't really think there's > anything "grouped" about the -g option; it's just an upgraded version > of -c that does what we probably should have had -C do from the > beginning, but now don't want to change out of a concern for > backward-compatibility. I would propose to change not only the > user-visible option name but all of the internal things that call this > "group" or "grouped". Maybe introduce ACT_COMMAND_LINE or similar > instead of ACT_GROUP_COMMANDS. >
-C is good, and if there will not by any objection, I am for it > > Whatever else we do here, -1 on having both _MainLoop and MainLoop as > function names. That can't be anything but confusing. > I'll have free time at weekend, and I'll check it. Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
