On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:13:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 9:50 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hmm.. So, "-r/--role" and "-m/--member(ship)" is the (least worse) way
> >> to go? Or we can give up adding -m for the reason of being hard to
> >> name it..
> >
> > Hmm, yeah, I hadn't quite realized what the problem was when I wrote
> > that. I honestly don't know what to do about that. Renaming the
> > existing option is not great, but having the syntax diverge between
> > SQL and CLI is not great either. Giving up is also not great. Not sure
> > what is best.
>
> Changing one existing option to mean something entirely different
> should be avoided, as this could lead to silent breakages. As the
> origin of the problem is that the option --role means "IN ROLE" in the
> SQL grammar, we could keep around --role for compatibility while
> marking it deprecated, and add two new options whose names would be
> more consistent with each other. One choice could be --role-name and
> --in-role-name, where --in-role-name maps to the older --role, just to
> give an idea.
I don't think that having both --role and --role-name, doing different
things, is going to be clear at all.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
