Re: -O switch

2020-11-10 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:58 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:10 AM Tom Lane wrote: > >> ... looking at this again, BackendRun certainly looks ridiculously > >> over-engineered for what it still does. > > > Yeah, looking at it again, I agree. PFA an upda

Re: -O switch

2020-11-09 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:10 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> ... looking at this again, BackendRun certainly looks ridiculously >> over-engineered for what it still does. > Yeah, looking at it again, I agree. PFA an updated patch, which I'll > go ahead and push shortly. LGTM. >

Re: -O switch

2020-11-09 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:10 AM Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > [ remove_option_o_2.patch ] > > This seems committable to me now, although ... > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote: > >> Magnus Hagander writes: > >>> Initially I kept the dynamic argv/argc in even th

Re: -O switch

2020-11-03 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > [ remove_option_o_2.patch ] This seems committable to me now, although ... > On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> Magnus Hagander writes: >>> Initially I kept the dynamic argv/argc in even though it's now >>> hardcoded, in case we wanted to add something

Re: -O switch

2020-11-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 6:58 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > PFA a patch to do this. > > One thing you missed is that the getopt() calls in both postmaster.c > and postgres.c have 'o:' entries that should be removed. Also IIRC > there is a "case 'o'" in postgres.c to go along w

Re: -O switch

2020-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > PFA a patch to do this. One thing you missed is that the getopt() calls in both postmaster.c and postgres.c have 'o:' entries that should be removed. Also IIRC there is a "case 'o'" in postgres.c to go along with that. > Initially I kept the dynamic argv/argc in even t

Re: -O switch

2020-11-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:25 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:45 PM Tom Lane wrote: > >> I don't think it's really obsolete ... don't we use that to pass > >> PGOPTIONS through from the client? > > > That said, I don't think we do, or I'm misunderstand

Re: -O switch

2020-10-29 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:45 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't think it's really obsolete ... don't we use that to pass >> PGOPTIONS through from the client? > That said, I don't think we do, or I'm misunderstanding what you mean. > The startup packet which holds the client

Re: -O switch

2020-10-29 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 4:45 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander writes: > > postgres --help: > > -o OPTIONS pass "OPTIONS" to each server process (obsolete) > > > This was marked obsolete in 2006 (86c23a6eb28). > > I don't think it's really obsolete ... don't we use that to pass > P

Re: -O switch

2020-10-29 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > postgres --help: > -o OPTIONS pass "OPTIONS" to each server process (obsolete) > This was marked obsolete in 2006 (86c23a6eb28). I don't think it's really obsolete ... don't we use that to pass PGOPTIONS through from the client? regard

-O switch

2020-10-29 Thread Magnus Hagander
postgres --help: -o OPTIONS pass "OPTIONS" to each server process (obsolete) This was marked obsolete in 2006 (86c23a6eb28). Is it perhaps time to get rid of it? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/