From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: createuser --memeber and PG 16 |
Date: | 2023-05-21 17:07:56 |
Message-ID: | 20230521170756.GA4034216@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:45:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> A few comments on the patch:
Thanks for taking a look.
>>> Indicates an existing role that will be automatically added as a member of the new
>
> "Specifies" would be clearer than "indicates" (not your fault, but
> let's avoid the passive construction while we are here). Likewise
> nearby.
Fixed.
>>> + {"member-of", required_argument, NULL, 6},
>
> Why didn't you just translate this as 'g' instead of inventing
> a new switch case?
Fixed. *facepalm*
> I think clearer would be
>
>>> + printf(_(" -a, --with-admin=ROLE ROLE will be a member of new role with admin\n"
>
> Likewise
>
>>> + printf(_(" -g, --member-of=ROLE new role will be a member of ROLE\n"));
>
> (I assume that's what this should say, it's backwards ATM)
> and
>
>>> + printf(_(" -m, --with-member=ROLE ROLE will be a member of new role\n"));
Fixed.
How do folks feel about keeping --role undocumented? Should we give it a
mention in the docs for --member-of?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
rename_createuser_options_v2.patch | text/x-diff | 6.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-05-21 17:11:05 | Re: PG 16 draft release notes ready |
Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2023-05-21 17:07:38 | Re: PostgreSQL 16 Beta 1 release announcement draft |