Re: Extra functionality to createuser

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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?"