Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Adam Brightwell wrote:
> > I'm not sure there was an actual discussion on the topic. Though, at one
> > point I had proposed it as one of the forms of this attribute. Personally,
> > I think it is easier to read with the underscore. But, ultimately, I
> > defaulted to no underscore to remain consistent with the other attributes,
> > such as CREATEDB and CREATEROLE.
>
> If we were choosing those names nowadays, would we choose CREATEDB at
> all in the first place? I think we'd go for something more verbose,
> probably CREATE_DATABASE. (CREATEROLE is not as old as CREATEDB, but my
> bet is that it was modelled after CREATEUSER without considering the
> whole readability topic too much.)
>
> Anyway it doesn't seem to me that consistency with lack of separators in
> those very old names should be our guiding principle here.

So you'd advocate EXCLUSIVE_BACKUP and NOEXCLUSIVE_BACKUP? Or
NO_EXCLUSIVE_BACKUP? Or..? If this was a green field, I think we might
actually use spaces instead, but I'm really not sure we want to go
through and redo everything that way at this point.. We'd end up
breaking a lot of scripts that currently work today and I'm really not
convinced it's better enough to justify that.

Thanks!

Stephen