Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Shinya Kato <Shinya11(dot)Kato(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add --{no-,}bypassrls flags to createuser
Date: 2022-04-18 13:59:48
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYO090Xkwp--vCo0FGrFZBTG=V7wE3EF5WEAPcrFTpbSg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 2:33 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > printf(_(" -b, --belongs-to=ROLE new role will be a member of this role\n"));
>
> + printf(_(" -m, --membership=ROLE this role will be a member of new role\n"));
>
> membership sounds somewhat obscure, it seems *to me* members is clearer
>
> > printf(_(" -m, --member=ROLE new role will be a member of this role\n"));
>
> I'd like to hear others' opinions.

I think that we need to preserve consistency with the SQL syntax as
much as possible -- and neither MEMBER nor MEMBERSHIP nor BELONGS_TO
appear in that syntax. A lot of the terminology in this area seems
poorly chosen and confusing to me, but having two ways to refer to
something probably won't be an improvement even if the second name is
better-chosen than the first one.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2022-04-18 14:11:05 Re: pg_walcleaner - new tool to detect, archive and delete the unneeded wal files (was Re: pg_archivecleanup - add the ability to detect, archive and delete the unneeded wal files on the primary)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-04-18 13:53:42 Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks