On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
