Re: Extra functionality to createuser
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Extra functionality to createuser |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1LBKH7ekzoK254D1AHpArt=H6Fsbj1Ain5ZShZFuEgUHQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Extra functionality to createuser (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Extra functionality to createuser
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>> How about only one role name per -g option, but allowing the -g option >>> to be repeated? >> >> I think that might simplify the problem and patch, but do you think >> it is okay to have inconsistency >> for usage of options between Create User statement and this utility? > > Yes. In general, command-line utilities use a very different syntax > for options-passing that SQL commands. Trying to make them consistent > feels unnecessary or perhaps even counterproductive. And the proposed > syntax is certainly a convention common to many other command-line > utilities, so I think it's fine. Okay, the new way for syntax suggested by Peter has simplified the problem. Please find the updated patch and docs for multiple -g options. If there are no objections, then I will mark this patch as Ready For Committer. Christopher, please check once, if you have any comments/objections for modifications. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: