On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 03:40 +0100, Erik Wienhold wrote: > On 2023-11-08 13:23 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > I wonder how to proceed with this patch. The main disagreement is > > whether default privileges should be displayed as NULL (less invasive, > > but more confusing for beginners) or "(default)" (more invasive, > > but nicer for beginners). > > Are there any reports from beginners being confused about default > privileges being NULL or being displayed as a blank string in psql? > This is usually resolved with a pointer to the docs if it comes up in > discussions or the user makes the mental leap and checks the docs > himself. Both patches add some details to the docs to explain psql's > output.
Right. > > David is for "(default)", Tom and me are for NULL, and I guess Erik > > would also prefer "(default)", since that was how his original > > patch did it, IIRC. I think I could live with both solutions. > > > > Kind of a stalemate. Who wants to tip the scales? > > Yes I had a slight preference for my patch but I'd go with yours (\pset > null) now. I followed the discussion after my last mail but had nothing > more to add that wasn't already said. Tom then wrote that NULL is the > catalog's representation for the default privileges and obscuring that > fact in psql is not doing any service to the users. This convinced me > because users may have to deal with aclitem[] being NULL anyway at some > point if they need to check privileges in more detail. So it makes > absolutely sense that psql is transparent about that. Thanks for the feedback. I'll set the patch to "ready for committer" then. Yours, Laurenz Albe
