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

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?