Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> My thought was that such people probably need to interpret LOGIN and
> NOLOGIN into their preferred language either way, but if \du displays
> something else, then they also need to mentally construct a reverse
> mapping, from whatever string is showing up there to the corresponding
> SQL syntax. The current display has that problem even for English
> speakers -- you have to know that "Cannot login" corresponds to
> "NOLOGIN" and that "No connections" corresponds to "CONNECTION LIMIT
> 0" and so forth.
True, although if you aren't happy with the current state then what
you actually need to construct is a SQL command to set a *different*
state from what \du is saying. Going from LOGIN to NOLOGIN or vice
versa can also be non-obvious. So you're likely to end up consulting
"\h alter user" no matter what, if you don't have it memorized.
I think your argument does have relevance for the other issue about
whether it's good to be silent about the defaults. If \du says
nothing at all about a particular property, that certainly isn't
helping you to decide whether you want to change it and if so to what.
I'm not convinced that point is dispositive, but it's something
to consider.
regards, tom lane
