From: | Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <jim(dot)nasby(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Things I don't like about \du's "Attributes" column |
Date: | 2024-04-16 06:15:58 |
Message-ID: | aa322bc2-87b8-485d-b544-6329feab2a14@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16.04.2024 01:06, David G. Johnston wrote:
> At this point I'm on board with retaining the \dr charter of simply being an easy way to access the detail exposed in pg_roles with some display formatting but without any attempt to convey how the system uses said information. Without changing pg_roles. Our level of effort here, and degree of dependence on superuser, doesn't seem to be bothering people enough to push more radical changes here through and we have good improvements that are being held up in the hope of possible perfection.
I have similar thoughts. I decided to wait for the end of featurefreeze
and propose a simpler version of the patch for v18, without changes in
pg_roles. I hope to send a new version soon. But about \dr. Is it a typo
and you mean \du & \dg? If we were choosing a name for the command now,
then \dr would be ideal: \dr - display roles \drg - display role grants
But the long history of \du & \dg prevents from doing so, and creating a
third option is too excessive.
--
Pavel Luzanov
Postgres Professional:https://postgrespro.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-04-16 06:25:11 | Re: Slow catchup of 2PC (twophase) transactions on replica in LR |
Previous Message | Japin Li | 2024-04-16 06:05:46 | Typo about the SetDatatabaseHasLoginEventTriggers? |