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.
If there are no objections, then I will mark this patch as Ready For Committer.
Christopher, please check once, if you have any comments/objections
for modifications.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com