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.
--
Michael
