Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwZxCUs=o-jWRUaHOoxBxpB1OTTVSvbz_0ivoSs4UM6KiA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 5:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 5:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> * 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 haven't formed an opinion yet on whether it should be prohibited.
But even if we do that going forward, won't psql need to deal with
such cases when examining old servers?
I haven't given enough thought to that. My first reaction is that using blank for old servers would be desirable and then, if allowed in v16+ server, "empty" for those.
That said, the entire grantor premise that motivated this doesn't exist on those servers so maybe \drg just shouldn't work against pre-v16 servers - and we keep the existing \du query as-is for those as well while removing the "member of" column when \du is executed against a v16+ server.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: