Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl and -h/help

2013-07-01 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Agreed --- attached patch applied. I also noticed that we sometimes > test for -? then --help, but other times do things in the opposite > order, and the same for -V/--version, so I made that consistent. > > However, I also noticed that while

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl and -h/help

2013-07-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 02:29:20PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > In studying pg_upgrade's handling of --help, I noticed that pg_ctl > > supports -h for help, but it is the only tool to do so, and -h is not > > documented. I propose we r

Re: [HACKERS] pg_ctl and -h/help

2013-06-29 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > In studying pg_upgrade's handling of --help, I noticed that pg_ctl > supports -h for help, but it is the only tool to do so, and -h is not > documented. I propose we remove -h for help in pg_ctl, and have it > support only -? and --help. I

[HACKERS] pg_ctl and -h/help

2013-06-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
In studying pg_upgrade's handling of --help, I noticed that pg_ctl supports -h for help, but it is the only tool to do so, and -h is not documented. I propose we remove -h for help in pg_ctl, and have it support only -? and --help. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB