On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@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
