On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On sön, 2012-01-15 at 18:14 -0500, Josh Kupershmidt wrote: >> I see this patch includes a small change to dropuser, to make the >> 'username' argument mandatory if --interactive is not set, for >> symmetry with createuser's new behavior. That's dandy, though IMO we >> shouldn't have "-i" be shorthand for "--interactive" with dropuser, >> and something different with createuser (i.e. we should just get rid >> of the "i" alias for dropuser). > > Well, all the other tools also support -i for prompting.
Taking a look at the current ./src/bin/scripts executables, I see only 2 out of 9 (`dropdb` and `dropuser`) which have "-i" mean "--interactive", and `reindexdb` has another meaning for "-i" entirely. So I'm not sure there's such a clear precedent for having "-i" mean "--interactive" within our scripts, at least. > I'd rather get > rid of -i for --inherit, but I fear that will break things as well. I'm > not sure what to do. I think breaking backwards compatibility probably won't fly (and should probably be handled by another patch, anyway). I guess it's OK to keep the patch's current behavior, given we are already inconsistent about what "-i" means. >> i.e. createuser tries taking either $PGUSER or the current username as >> a default user to create, while dropuser just bails out. Personally, I >> prefer just bailing out if no create/drop user is specified, but >> either way I think they should be consistent. > > That is intentional long-standing behavior. createdb/dropdb work the > same way. OK. Josh -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
