| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shinya Kato <Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser |
| Date: | 2022-04-25 20:19:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20220425201947.GA2935432@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 01:21:57PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I'm ok with -m/--member as well (like with --role only one role can be
> specified per switch instance so member, not membership, the later meaning,
> at least for me, the collective).
>
> That -m doesn't match --role-to is no worse than -g not matching --role, a
> short option seems worthwhile, and the -m (membership) mnemonic should be
> simple to pick-up.
>
> I don't see the addition of "-name" to the option name being beneficial.
>
> Yes, the standard doesn't use the "TO" prefix for "ROLE" - but taking that
> liberty for consistency here is very appealing and there isn't another SQL
> clause that it would be confused with.
+1 for "member". It might not be perfect, but IMO it's the clearest
option.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-04-25 20:34:38 | Re: add checkpoint stats of snapshot and mapping files of pg_logical dir |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-04-25 19:54:43 | Re: Use "WAL segment" instead of "log segment" consistently in user-facing messages |