Thread

1. disable prompting by default in createuser

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2011-11-25T23:28:31Z

   I propose that we change createuser so that it does not prompt for
   anything by default.  We can arrange options so that you can get prompts
   for whatever is missing, but by default, a call to createuser should
   just run CREATE USER with default options.  The fact that createuser
   issues prompts is always annoying when you create setup scripts, because
   you have to be careful to specify all the necessary options, and they
   are inconsistent and different between versions (although the last
   change about that was a long time ago), and the whole behavior seems
   contrary to the behavior of all other utilities.  I don't think there'd
   be a real loss by not prompting by default; after all, we don't really
   want to encourage users to create more superusers, do we?  Comments?
   
   
   
   

2. Re: disable prompting by default in createuser

   Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2011-11-26T00:32:47Z

   On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
   > I propose that we change createuser so that it does not prompt for
   > anything by default.  We can arrange options so that you can get prompts
   > for whatever is missing, but by default, a call to createuser should
   > just run CREATE USER with default options.  The fact that createuser
   > issues prompts is always annoying when you create setup scripts, because
   > you have to be careful to specify all the necessary options, and they
   > are inconsistent and different between versions (although the last
   > change about that was a long time ago), and the whole behavior seems
   > contrary to the behavior of all other utilities.  I don't think there'd
   > be a real loss by not prompting by default; after all, we don't really
   > want to encourage users to create more superusers, do we?  Comments?
   
   +1.  I've never found the current behavior to be other than an
   annoyance.  I suggest --interactive or something like that to enable
   prompting.
   
   -- 
   Robert Haas
   EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
   The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
   
   

3. Re: disable prompting by default in createuser

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2011-12-22T19:26:00Z

   On lör, 2011-11-26 at 01:28 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
   > I propose that we change createuser so that it does not prompt for
   > anything by default.  We can arrange options so that you can get prompts
   > for whatever is missing, but by default, a call to createuser should
   > just run CREATE USER with default options.  The fact that createuser
   > issues prompts is always annoying when you create setup scripts, because
   > you have to be careful to specify all the necessary options, and they
   > are inconsistent and different between versions (although the last
   > change about that was a long time ago), and the whole behavior seems
   > contrary to the behavior of all other utilities.  I don't think there'd
   > be a real loss by not prompting by default; after all, we don't really
   > want to encourage users to create more superusers, do we?  Comments?
   
   Patch attached.  I'll add it to the next commitfest.
   
   

4. Re: disable prompting by default in createuser

   Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> — 2012-01-15T23:14:16Z

   On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
   > On lör, 2011-11-26 at 01:28 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
   >> I propose that we change createuser so that it does not prompt for
   >> anything by default.  We can arrange options so that you can get prompts
   >> for whatever is missing, but by default, a call to createuser should
   >> just run CREATE USER with default options.  The fact that createuser
   >> issues prompts is always annoying when you create setup scripts, because
   >> you have to be careful to specify all the necessary options, and they
   >> are inconsistent and different between versions (although the last
   >> change about that was a long time ago), and the whole behavior seems
   >> contrary to the behavior of all other utilities.  I don't think there'd
   >> be a real loss by not prompting by default; after all, we don't really
   >> want to encourage users to create more superusers, do we?  Comments?
   >
   > Patch attached.  I'll add it to the next commitfest.
   
   I looked at this patch for the 2012-01 CF. I like the idea, the
   interactive-by-default behavior of createuser has always bugged me as
   well.
   
   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).
   
   Another little inconsistency I see with the behavior when no username
   to create or drop is given:
   
   $  createuser
   createuser: creation of new role failed: ERROR:  role "josh" already exists
   $ dropuser
   dropuser: missing required argument role name
   Try "dropuser --help" for more information.
   
   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.
   
   Oh, and I think the leading whitespace of this help message:
   
       printf(_("      --interactive         prompt for missing role name
   and attributes rather\n"
   
   should be made the same as for other commands with no short-alias, e.g.
   
       printf(_("  --replication             role can initiate replication\n"));
   
   Other than those little complaints, everything looks good.
   
   Josh
   
   

5. Re: disable prompting by default in createuser

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2012-02-01T18:13:29Z

   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.  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.
   > 
   > Another little inconsistency I see with the behavior when no username
   > to create or drop is given:
   > 
   > $  createuser
   > createuser: creation of new role failed: ERROR:  role "josh" already
   > exists
   > $ dropuser
   > dropuser: missing required argument role name
   > Try "dropuser --help" for more information.
   > 
   > 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.
   
   
   
   

6. Re: disable prompting by default in createuser

   Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy@gmail.com> — 2012-02-06T01:45:38Z

   On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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