MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHut+Ptqjj+cP+=U3u1+B2XUkFyt=3_GXmqCRepfRYDr7pqwSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <18D6F77A-A3FD-4DEE-8C79-D719F56D262F@yesql.se>
In-Reply-To: <18D6F77A-A3FD-4DEE-8C79-D719F56D262F@yesql.se>
From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 12:21:00 +1100
Message-ID: 
 <CAHut+PsWZrBzAR3LsBX7ksUPm_ud4Rf2WAVAQKBX9kN0Q_8YLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DOCS - Server Applications [option] should be [option...]
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPsWZrBzAR3LsBX7ksUPm_ud4Rf2WAVAQKBX9kN0Q_8YLg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 1:48=E2=80=AFAM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>=
 wrote:
>
> > On 17 Feb 2026, at 02:08, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Make the "option" part consistent in the synopses of all Server Applica=
tions:
> >
> > 1. "[option]" should be "[option...]"
>
> Only if the application can take multiple options.  pg_controldata can fo=
r
> example only take a single parameter so [option] is correct there.
>

You are correct. Thanks for pointing it out.

> > 2. It should be first
>
> Why?  I think it makes more sense to list [option...] after required para=
meters
> just like how pg_upgrade does it.  We might not be consistent as is, but =
I'm
> not sure it's a net improvement to always list it first as opposed to wha=
t we
> have.
>

This patch/thread was primarily about #1, which turned out to be
mistaken. The #2 re-ordering part was just done at the same time, but
got it no support

So, I am withdrawing this patch.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia