Re: Things I don't like about \du's "Attributes" column

On 07.06.2024 15:35, Robert Haas wrote:

> This seems unobjectionable to me. I am not sure whether it is better
> than the current verison, or whether it is what we want. But it seems
> reasonable.

I consider this patch as a continuation of the work on \drg command,
when it was decided to remove the "Member of" column from \du command.

Without "Member of" column, the output of the \du command looks very short.
Only two columns: "Role name" and "Attributes". All the information about
the role is collected in just one "Attributes" column and it is not presented
in the most convenient and obvious way. What exactly is wrong with
the Attribute column Tom wrote in the first message of this thread and I agree
with these arguments.

The current implementation offers some solutions for 3 of the 4 issues
mentioned in Tom's initial message. Issue about display of rolvaliduntil
can't be resolved without changing pg_roles (or executing different queries
for different users).

Therefore, I think the current patch offers a better version of the \du command.
However, I admit that these improvements are not enough to accept the patch.
I would like to hear other opinions.

--
Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional:https://postgrespro.com