Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Why not --with-uuid-implementation=<impl>, and have <impl> be one of
> > e2utils, bsd, ossp, with the latter being default? We could also have
> > offer the value "list" or "help" which would list the available options.
> > That way, if we come up with a new implementation in the future, this is
> > easily extensible.
>
> The problem is that the long-established spelling is --with-ossp-uuid.
> I don't think we can break that case. While we could set up something
> like what you propose alongside it, it doesn't seem like there's any
> advantage to doing so compared to inventing --with-foo-uuid as needed.
I was thinking that --with-ossp-uuid would still be required to enable
UUID generators at all; the other one just selects the implementation to
use, which defaults to OSSP to maintain backwards compatibility. Maybe
introduce --with-uuid and have --with-ossp-uuid a deprecated synonym of
that.
As a more sophisticated idea: if you say --with-uuid then
--with-uuid-implementation is required; if you say --with-ossp-uuid then
--with-uuid-implementation is optional and defaults to OSSP.
> In either case, the problem remains of exactly what to call the
> e2fsprogs-derived implementation. It does seem that people who are
> familiar with these libraries call it that, but I'm worried that such
> a name will confuse those not so familiar.
I vote "e2fsprogs". In the help text for that option, mention that it
works on Linux and some others OSes, or something like that so that
people on Linux try that one first, and people on other OSes can
web-search to see whether it's available.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services