Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser
От | Kyotaro Horiguchi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20220415.153341.594036939490942414.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser (Shinya Kato <Shinya11.Kato@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
At Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:55:48 +0900, Shinya Kato <Shinya11.Kato@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > I understand. For backward compatibility, I left the ROLE clause > option as it is and changed the IN ROLE clause option to --membership > option. Thanks! - printf(_(" -g, --role=ROLE new role will be a member of this role\n")); + printf(_(" -g, --role=ROLE new role will be a member of this role\n")); This looks lik an unexpected change. We shoudl preserve it, but *I* think that we can add a synonym of the old --role for understandability/memorability. (By the way "-g" looks like coming from "group", which looks somewhat strange..) > printf(_(" -b, --belongs-to=ROLE new role will be a member of this role\n")); + printf(_(" -m, --membership=ROLE this role will be a member of new role\n")); membership sounds somewhat obscure, it seems *to me* members is clearer > printf(_(" -m, --member=ROLE new role will be a member of this role\n")); I'd like to hear others' opinions. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: