On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 09:06, Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> On 11.07.2024 15:07, Rafia Sabih wrote:
>
> This looks much better than the current version.
>
> Thank you, for looking into this.
>
> Only thing is, I find
> the column name Valid until confusing. With that name I am in danger
> of taking it as the role's validity and not the passwords'.
> How about naming it to something like Password validity...?
>
> Yes, my first attempt was to name this column "Password expiration date"
> for the same reason.
>
> But then I decided that the column name should match the attribute name.
> Otherwise, you need to make some effort to understand which columns
> of the table correspond to which attributes of the roles.
>
> It is also worth considering translation into other languages.
> If the role attribute and the column have the same name, then they will
> probably be translated the same way. But the translation may be different
> for different terms, which will further confuse the situation.
>
> We can probably change the column name, but still the root of the confusion
> is caused by the attribute name, not the column name.
>
> What do you think?
Yes you are right in this. I too carry the opinion that column names
should be the same as attribute names as much as possible.
So, then it is good that way.
Other thoughts came to my mind, should we have this column in \du+
instead, maybe connection limit too.
I know in the current version we have all this in \du itself, but then
all clubbed in one column. But now since
our table has got wider, it might be aesthetic to have it in the
extended version. Also, their usage wise might not
be the first thing to be looked at for a user/role.
What are your thoughts on that?
>
> --
> Pavel Luzanov
> Postgres Professional: https://postgrespro.com
--
Regards,
Rafia Sabih
