On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 07:50:36AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Seeing the precedent with --no-blobs and --blobs, yes, that should be
> enough. You may want to wait until beta1 is stamped to apply
> something, though, as the period between the stamp and the tag is used
> to check the state of t
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 05:11:14AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:42:28AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 21.05.23 19:07, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> How do folks feel about keeping --role undocumented? Should we give it a
> >> mention in the docs for --member-of?
>
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 08:42:28AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 21.05.23 19:07, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> How do folks feel about keeping --role undocumented? Should we give it a
>> mention in the docs for --member-of?
>
> We made a point in this release to document deprecated options consi
On 21.05.23 19:07, Nathan Bossart wrote:
How do folks feel about keeping --role undocumented? Should we give it a
mention in the docs for --member-of?
We made a point in this release to document deprecated options
consistently. See commit 2f80c95740.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 09:11:18AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 12:16:58PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> Alright. Barring any additional feedback, I'll commit this tonight.
>
> v2 passes the eye test, and I am not spotting any references to the
> past option names. T
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 12:16:58PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 01:20:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Nathan Bossart writes:
>>> How do folks feel about keeping --role undocumented? Should we give it a
>>> mention in the docs for --member-of?
>>
>> I'm okay with leaving
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 01:20:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart writes:
>> Fixed.
>
> v2 looks good to me, except the documentation wording for --with-role
> is needlessly inconsistent with --with-admin. The --with-admin
> wording looks better, so I suggest
>
> -Indicates the
Nathan Bossart writes:
> Fixed.
v2 looks good to me, except the documentation wording for --with-role
is needlessly inconsistent with --with-admin. The --with-admin
wording looks better, so I suggest
-Indicates the specified existing role should be automatically
+Specifies an ex
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:45:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> A few comments on the patch:
Thanks for taking a look.
>>> Indicates an existing role that will be automatically added as a
>>> member of the new
>
> "Specifies" would be clearer than "indicates" (not your fault, but
> let's a
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 08:22:05AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I've attached a draft patch for this. I also changed --admin to
>> --with-admin.
> If we want to go forward with this, the big question is whether we want
> to get this in before beta1. FYI, the release n
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 08:22:05AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 07:44:49AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 08:00:15AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Maybe
> >>
> >> createuser --with-members
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> createuser --member-of
>
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 07:44:49AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 08:00:15AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Maybe
>>
>> createuser --with-members
>>
>> and
>>
>> createuser --member-of
>>
>> would be clearer.
>
> Those seem like reasonable choices to me. I suspect w
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 08:00:15AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Maybe
>
> createuser --with-members
>
> and
>
> createuser --member-of
>
> would be clearer.
Those seem like reasonable choices to me. I suspect we'll want to keep
--role around for backward compatibility.
--
Nathan Bossart
On 15.05.23 22:11, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 04:27:04PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:35:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
it's not intuitive whether foo becomes a member of bar or bar becomes a
member of foo. Maybe something more verbose like -
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:22:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Patch applied.
Thanks, Bruce.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 01:33:26PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In writing the PG 16 release notes, I came upon an oddity in our new
> createuser syntax, specifically --role and --member. It turns out that
> --role matches CREATE ROLE ... ROLE IN (and has prior to PG 16) while
> the new --member
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 04:27:04PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:35:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> it's not intuitive whether foo becomes a member of bar or bar becomes a
>> member of foo. Maybe something more verbose like --member-of would help?
>
> Indeed, p
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 04:33:27PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 09:34:42AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 02:21:22PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> IIRC there were a number of ideas presented in that thread but backwards
> >> compatibility w
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 09:34:42AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 02:21:22PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> IIRC there were a number of ideas presented in that thread but backwards
>> compatibility with --role already "taken" made it complicated, so --role and
>> --member
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:35:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> it's not intuitive whether foo becomes a member of bar or bar becomes a
> member of foo. Maybe something more verbose like --member-of would help?
Indeed, presented like that it could be confusing, and --member-of
sounds like it
On 11.05.23 16:07, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:33 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
This seems like it will be forever confusing to people. I frankly don't
know why --role matching CREATE ROLE ... ROLE IN was not already
confusing in pre-PG 16. Any new ideas for improvement?
Yeah, it
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:33 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> This seems like it will be forever confusing to people. I frankly don't
> know why --role matching CREATE ROLE ... ROLE IN was not already
> confusing in pre-PG 16. Any new ideas for improvement?
Yeah, it's a bad situation. I think --role i
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 02:21:22PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 10 May 2023, at 19:33, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I frankly don't
> > know why --role matching CREATE ROLE ... ROLE IN was not already
> > confusing in pre-PG 16. Any new ideas for improvement?
>
> IIRC there were a numbe
> On 10 May 2023, at 19:33, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I frankly don't
> know why --role matching CREATE ROLE ... ROLE IN was not already
> confusing in pre-PG 16. Any new ideas for improvement?
IIRC there were a number of ideas presented in that thread but backwards
compatibility with --role alrea
In writing the PG 16 release notes, I came upon an oddity in our new
createuser syntax, specifically --role and --member. It turns out that
--role matches CREATE ROLE ... ROLE IN (and has prior to PG 16) while
the new --member option matches CREATE ROLE ... ROLE. The PG 16 feature
discussion thre
25 matches
Mail list logo
