On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:46:37PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Apr-30, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 29.04.25 23:54, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> > Fair point. We seem to be pivoting towards long options, anyway. If
>> > there's support for this, I could go through all the client and serve
On 2025-Apr-30, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 29.04.25 23:54, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Fair point. We seem to be pivoting towards long options, anyway. If
> > there's support for this, I could go through all the client and server
> > application docs to ensure they match this style.
>
> However
On 29.04.25 23:54, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:45:11PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
I think the concept here is that all short options go first in
alphabetical order, then the long options in their own alphabetical
order, and if one option has both, then the short option tak
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:45:11PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think the concept here is that all short options go first in
> alphabetical order, then the long options in their own alphabetical
> order, and if one option has both, then the short option takes
> precedence.
That's what it looks
On 2025-Apr-29, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I noticed some of the new pg_dump[all] long options (e.g., --with-data,
> --statistics-only) are not listed in alphabetical order in the docs.
> Attached is a patch to fix that.
I think the concept here is that all short options go first in
alphabetical ord
