Re: whats the deal with -u ?

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> 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.

> I agree that it'd be best to remove it and I don't think it'll cause
> problems for it to go away.

I dug around a bit more and realized that pg_dump and pg_restore have
the same -u switch with the same behavior. Theirs are likewise
undocumented, but they don't print the annoying deprecation notice
when it's used.

The use-case for a prompt for username seems even less for these two
programs than for psql, so I doubt that removing the switch is likely
to break any existing usage.

Barring objections, I'll remove all three tomorrow.

regards, tom lane