On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:23 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote: >>> I note that similar (with not quite identical behaviour) issues apply >>> to the user name. Perhaps the >>> resolution to this is to leave quoting issues to the administrator. >>> That simplifies the problem away. >> >> 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
