Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+

From: Hunaid Sohail <hunaidpgml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Maiquel Grassi <grassi(at)hotmail(dot)com(dot)br>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+
Date: 2025-01-07 09:43:48
Message-ID: CAMWA6yZyM=BkMTOGhtDcJ0Eig22kCJMFAF++qi-P1B63X8V1Cg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Thank you for your valuable feedback.

1/ I am having a hard time making sense of the section "Current Status"
> None of the values in that section can be changed in the lifetime
> of a connection. The description "Current Status" makes it
> seem like they can change.
>

Any suggestions?

2/ Can't this be simplified to:
>
> "Connection Information": attributes that cannot be changed
> during the life of a connection.

I will update the docs.
Since both "Current Status" and "Connection Information" contain attributes
that cannot be changed in the lifetime of a connection, they can be merged.
Any feedback?

> I think "Connection Encryption" seems unnecessary here as
> well and it could be added to "Connection Information".

Yes, we can do that, but we’d be left with two tables:
"Connection Information" and "Server Parameter Settings". Does that work?

"Server Parameter Settings": This section should include
> all under [1]. For example, "in_hot_standby" is very
> useful, and so is "application_name". Why are they
> not included?
>

There was a discussion about "application_name" earlier in the thread, and
it was removed by the original author.
However, since we now have a separate table, it makes sense to include all
parameters.

3/ I think that if we are showing "Session Authorization",
> we should also show "Role Name", since either one of those
> values changing can result in a different "Superuser" value.
> In the example below, the user may be confused in thinking
> that "postgres" is not a superuser. Showing the role name
> will make the picture clearer. What do you think?
>

Agreed. However, since we're using the libpq API, I don't think we can
retrieve the role name.
Maybe remove "Session Authorization" instead?

Regards,
Hunaid Sohail

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Cédric Villemain 2025-01-07 09:47:42 Re: PoC: history of recent vacuum/checkpoint runs (using new hooks)
Previous Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2025-01-07 09:10:49 RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication