"Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes: > On 6/15/23 2:47 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: >> Robert - can you please comment on what you are willing to commit in >> order to close out your open item here. My take is that the design for >> this, the tabular form a couple of emails ago (copied here), is >> ready-to-commit, just needing the actual (trivial) code changes to be >> made to accomplish it.
> Can we resolve this before Beta 2?[1] The RMT originally advised to try > to resolve before Beta 1[2], and this seems to be lingering.
At this point I kinda doubt that we can get this done before beta2 either, but I'll put in my two cents anyway:
* I agree that the "tabular" format looks nicer and has fewer i18n issues than the other proposals.
As you are on board with a separate command please clarify whether you mean the tabular format but still with newlines, one row per grantee, or the table with one row per grantor-grantee pair.
I still like using newlines here even in the separate meta-command.
* Personally I could do without the "empty" business, but that seems unnecessary in the tabular format; an empty column will serve fine.
I disagree, but not strongly.
I kinda expected you to be on the side of "why are we discussing a situation that should just be prohibited" though.
* I also agree with Pavel's comment that we'd be better off taking this out of \du altogether and inventing a separate \d command. Maybe "\drg" for "display role grants"?
Just to be clear, the open item fix proposal is to remove the presently broken (due to it showing duplicates without any context) "member of" array in \du and make a simple table report output in \drg instead.
I'm good with \drg as a new meta-command.
* Parenthetically, the "Attributes" column of \du is a complete disaster
I hadn't thought about this in detail but did get the same impression.
