Re: createuser --memeber and PG 16

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: createuser --memeber and PG 16
Date: 2023-05-12 14:35:34
Message-ID: 0d7e2f0b-096e-7aba-e57f-3102762aede7@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11.05.23 16:07, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:33 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> This seems like it will be forever confusing to people. I frankly don't
>> know why --role matching CREATE ROLE ... ROLE IN was not already
>> confusing in pre-PG 16. Any new ideas for improvement?
>
> Yeah, it's a bad situation. I think --role is basically misnamed.
> Something like --add-to-group would have been clearer, but that also
> has the problem of being inconsistent with the SQL command. The whole
> ROLE vs. IN ROLE thing is inherently quite confusing, I think. It's
> very easy to get confused about which direction the membership arrows
> are pointing.

It's hard to tell that for the --member option as well. For

createuser foo --member bar

it's not intuitive whether foo becomes a member of bar or bar becomes a
member of foo. Maybe something more verbose like --member-of would help?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2023-05-12 14:40:38 Re: Adding SHOW CREATE TABLE
Previous Message Nathaniel Sabanski 2023-05-12 14:34:44 Re: Adding SHOW CREATE TABLE