Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser
От | Kyotaro Horiguchi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20220419.105012.1677795152077894444.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks! At Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:59:48 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 2:33 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > I think that we need to preserve consistency with the SQL syntax as > much as possible -- and neither MEMBER nor MEMBERSHIP nor BELONGS_TO > appear in that syntax. A lot of the terminology in this area seems > poorly chosen and confusing to me, but having two ways to refer to > something probably won't be an improvement even if the second name is > better-chosen than the first one. Hmm.. So, "-r/--role" and "-m/--member(ship)" is the (least worse) way to go? Or we can give up adding -m for the reason of being hard to name it.. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: