On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> * As the patch stands, --set-db-properties is implicit when you specify
> -C, and in fact the patch goes to the trouble of throwing an error if you
> try to specify both switches. I'm inclined to think this might be a bad
> idea. What about saying that -C enables emitting CREATE DATABASE and
> reconnecting to that DB, and independently of that, --set-db-properties
> enables emitting the additional per-database properties? This seems
> simpler to understand, more flexible, and less of a change from the
> previous behavior of -C. On the other hand you could argue that people
> would always want --set-db-properties with -C and so we're merely
> promoting carpal tunnel (and errors of omission) if we do it like that.
I would vigorously agree with that latter argument. I think the
chances of errors of omission would be very high even if the carpal
tunnel dangers were ameliorated by giving --set-db-properties a short
option name.
> If so, maybe we could say "-C implies --set-db-properties by default, but
> if you really don't want that, you can say -C --no-set-db-properties".
That seems like a better idea.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
