Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Samstag, 3. Juni 2006 04:27 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> Actually, the TODO item is very badly worded. The idea is to get rid of
>> the spelling differences between postmaster and postgres options, and
>> then there will be no need for '-o' because you'll
Am Samstag, 3. Juni 2006 04:27 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Actually, the TODO item is very badly worded. The idea is to get rid of
> the spelling differences between postmaster and postgres options, and
> then there will be no need for '-o' because you'll just say what you
> want --- that is, "-o -foo" an
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> I was looking at this todo item and I was wondering why we want to do
>> this? I have had to use -o -P on many occassion and was wondering if
>> there is something new to replace it in newer PostgreSQL?
> Keep in mind that po
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was looking at this todo item and I was wondering why we want to do
> this? I have had to use -o -P on many occassion and was wondering if
> there is something new to replace it in newer PostgreSQL?
Uh, are you confusing it with
postgres -O -P?
Keep in min
Hello,
I was looking at this todo item and I was wondering why we want to do
this? I have had to use -o -P on many occassion and was wondering if
there is something new to replace it in newer PostgreSQL?
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support
