On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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: >>>> >>>> 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.
Committed. -- 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
