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 | CAKFQuwad6E0C+=_uk0CFK-x1jfFNeyOOmmaMObDxC5=nyF7Gvg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command (Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>) |
| Ответы |
Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:11 AM Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
Notes
* The name of the new command. It's a good name, if not for the history.
There are two commands showing the same information about roles: \du and
\dr.
The addition of \drg may be misinterpreted: if there is \drg, then there
is also \dug.
Maybe it's time to think about deprecating of the \du command and leave
only \dg in the next versions?
I would add \dr as the new official command to complement adding \drg and deprecate both \du and \dg. Though actual removal and de-documenting doesn't seem like a good idea. But if we ever did assign something non-role to \dr it would be very confusing.
* The new meta-command will also make sense for versions <16.
The ADMIN OPTION is available in all supported versions.
Doesn't every role pre-16 gain SET permission? We can also deduce whether the grant provides INHERIT based upon the attribute of the role in question.
* The new meta-command will not show all roles. It will only show the
roles included in other roles.
To show all roles you need to add an outer join between pg_roles and
pg_auth_members.
But all columns except "role" will be left blank. Is it worth doing this?
I'm inclined to want this. I would be good when specifying a role to filter upon that all rows that do exist matching that filter end up in the output regardless if they are standalone or not.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: