Use --interactive flag for PostgreSQL 9.2+

Review Request #1338 — Created Aug. 2, 2018 and updated

guest6247
Review Board
db11b72...
demo
Since PostgreSQL 9.2, the --interactive flag to createuser is required
to get the "ask me for everything I didn't specify" behavior that was
the default behavior in 9.1 and previous [1] and that the rest of this
document assumes.

The --interactive flag is not recognized in 9.1, so this will not work
with 9.1 and previous.  But, PostgreSQL 9.1 was EOL'd 22 months ago
[2], so it's not worth complicating these instructions with an "If your
PostgreSQL version is ..." branch here to support such an old release.

[1] Compare:
    https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/app-createuser.html
    https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/app-createuser.html
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/

Reviewed at https://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/10111/

dfgdfg

Description From Last Updated

qazxswedcvfrtgbh

guest6035guest6035

?????

guest6035guest6035

adssadsa

guest6666guest6666

Code should be refactored

guest5654guest5654

blagh

guest6247guest6247

rererwer

guest6540guest6540

@@@@

guest6540guest6540
guest6247
Review request changed

Change Summary:

fhfhh

Testing Done:

  +

dfgdfg

guest6247
  1. 
      
  2. AUTHORS (Diff revision 1)
     
     
  3. 
      
guest6247
  1. 
      
  2. fgfgfgfghfh

  3. 
      
guest7848
guest8293
  1. Ok!

  2. 
      
guest8293
  1. 
      
  2. 
      
guest8293
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest96
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest5583
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest6035
  1. ?????

  2. 
      
guest6035
guest6035
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest4922
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest4922
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest8502
  1. header

  2. 
      
guest7887
  1. aaa

  2. 
      
guest7887
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest6540
guest6540
guest7301
guest4383
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest6666
  1. Ship It!
  2. 
      
guest6666
  1. adsadsadsadsa

  2. 
      
guest6666
  1. 
      
  2. adssadsa

  3. 
      
guest5654
  1. 
      
  2. Code should be refactored

  3. 
      
guest1778
  1. 
      
  2. 
      
Loading...