On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:23 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
>>> I note that similar (with not quite identical behaviour) issues apply
>>> to the user name. Perhaps the
>>> resolution to this is to leave quoting issues to the administrator.
>>> That simplifies the problem away.
>>
>> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
