On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Looks good, thanks! -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
