On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 5:08 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@postgresql.org> writes: > > On 6/15/23 2:47 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > >> Robert - can you please comment on what you are willing to commit in > >> order to close out your open item here. My take is that the design for > >> this, the tabular form a couple of emails ago (copied here), is > >> ready-to-commit, just needing the actual (trivial) code changes to be > >> made to accomplish it. > > > Can we resolve this before Beta 2?[1] The RMT originally advised to try > > to resolve before Beta 1[2], and this seems to be lingering. > > At this point I kinda doubt that we can get this done before beta2 > either, but I'll put in my two cents anyway: > > * I agree that the "tabular" format looks nicer and has fewer i18n > issues than the other proposals. > As you are on board with a separate command please clarify whether you mean the tabular format but still with newlines, one row per grantee, or the table with one row per grantor-grantee pair. I still like using newlines here even in the separate meta-command. > > * Personally I could do without the "empty" business, but that seems > unnecessary in the tabular format; an empty column will serve fine. > I disagree, but not strongly. I kinda expected you to be on the side of "why are we discussing a situation that should just be prohibited" though. > * I also agree with Pavel's comment that we'd be better off taking > this out of \du altogether and inventing a separate \d command. > Maybe "\drg" for "display role grants"? > Just to be clear, the open item fix proposal is to remove the presently broken (due to it showing duplicates without any context) "member of" array in \du and make a simple table report output in \drg instead. I'm good with \drg as a new meta-command. > * Parenthetically, the "Attributes" column of \du is a complete > disaster > > I hadn't thought about this in detail but did get the same impression. David J.
