On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@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....@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
