From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
        Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>,
        Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+Tgmob14thvsiPg_PahJZu6gsH_66PMvqJ5FYLoiOL98-CTLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAFiTN-tb2Ot=pgqawNn3kW6nAKAiAHO9e4TRgDPgCPR3Uu40tA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFiTN-uZXh9R=fYyR1+z6Gszeu2SCQwKhrUqGu23O9vOh7sipg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYtcdxBjLh31DLxUXHxFVMPGzrU5_T=CYCvRyFHywSBUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFiTN-uzLbV17OwcyJSLrEGEBF0YzMsRkobRD5Y_kE8M7xoAtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZHDwEjPHO6RceWZZ5L1FeJ4_VEi0t39rnWFBAbnoq53w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFiTN-sdxdSYObqO7-LYy=7tAB1zamT3trPq7ukfupKPMnjYdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFiTN-ujhw-ttQ9-1pdcXtSn3mxhKCBQYvQsq=hQHQZwSn4xjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFiTN-tSUj56cyS6a88sgn3MWJBOA_VjEQfc7fZmWicKwijraA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYVDLtS0v6XNTk=xBVStjZu_XaS5FTY74neb_h8YOcF0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmobUW9NQK7EJkV_0F87bqqq5BSHKiX2+wfthLcy4qA7YvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220329173536.7d2ywdatsprxl4x6@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <48606.1648576426@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmob14thvsiPg_PahJZu6gsH_66PMvqJ5FYLoiOL98-CTLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:57:52 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <50700.1648577840.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:17:20 -0400
Message-ID: <50701.1648577840@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50701.1648577840%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 1:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> That test script is expecting glibc-like laxness of switch
>> parsing.  Put the switches before the non-switch arguments.

> I just did that. :-)

Yup, you pushed while I was typing.

FWIW, I don't think it's "Windows" enforcing this, it's our own
src/port/getopt[_long].c.  If there were a well-defined spec
for what glibc does with such cases, it might be interesting to
try to make our version bug-compatible with theirs.  But AFAIK
it's some random algorithm that they probably feel at liberty
to change.

			regards, tom lane