Re: CREATE/ALTER ROLE with NULL password
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CREATE/ALTER ROLE with NULL password |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20181122020759.GE3369@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | CREATE/ALTER ROLE with NULL password (PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: CREATE/ALTER ROLE with NULL password
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 07:36:59PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The current synopsis for CREATE / ALTER ROLE give one of the allowed options > as: > [ ENCRYPTED ] PASSWORD 'password' > and the current documentation for CREATE ROLE says: > "The ENCRYPTED keyword has no effect, but is accepted for backwards > compatibility." The grammar is still supported, so keeping it documented has no actual problems until it gets removed, if that happens. Keeping it is not a real maintenance burden either. > I think it might be worth explicitly specifying the password-blanking form > for both commands as a new option in their synopses, e.g.: > > " > CREATE ROLE name [ [ WITH ] option [ ... ] ] > > where option can be: > > SUPERUSER | NOSUPERUSER > | CREATEDB | NOCREATEDB > ... > | [ ENCRYPTED ] PASSWORD 'password' | PASSWORD NULL > ... > " Yes, that the set of grammar combination supported, as ENCRYPTED PASSWORD NULL is not possible. > Also, there is inconsistency of quoting of 'password' in the synopsis for > CREATE/ALTER ROLE (has quotes) vs. their respective parameters sections (no > quotes). Agreed, this should have quotes for consistency. Any objections with the attached set of fixes from anybody? -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: