Re: whats the deal with -u ?

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
>> So as far as I can tell, the available options -U and -W serve all the
>> existing use cases. I would have no issue with getting rid of the -W option
>> if someone wants to take responsibility for ensuring that it will really
>> never be necessary. I see no technical or usability merit in reviving the -u
>> option. I hope the above explanations have shed some light on that.

> I think getting rid of -W would cause a problem w/ PAM in some instances
> since, iirc, PG will try PAM w/o a password first and only prompt if it
> doesn't work.

I'm not very interested in trying to get rid of -W; it's documented,
it's orthogonal to all other switches, and we can see at least some
marginal use-cases for it.

However, I think we should either get rid of -u or find a way to
un-deprecate it. Right now, it's undocumented and as far as I can see
the main effect of having it is to cause confusion such as that which
started this thread.

On the whole I'm in favor of removing it. It's been undocumented for
long enough that no one could really complain if it disappears.
Further down the road, those whose notion of "intuitive" was formed
by mysql might lobby to have -u become an alternate spelling for -U,
but that obviously can't happen until the switch has actually been
gone for a few releases.

regards, tom lane