From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sameer Thakur <samthakur74(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Extra functionality to createuser |
Date: | 2013-12-10 14:55:54 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LBKH7ekzoK254D1AHpArt=H6Fsbj1Ain5ZShZFuEgUHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
createuser4.diff | text/plain | 3.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-12-10 15:15:51 | Re: Compression of tables |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-12-10 14:32:44 | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |