On 6/23/23 11:52 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 5:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org
> <mailto: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:
[RMT Hat]
Well, the probability of completing this before the beta 2 freeze is
effectively zero now. This is a bit disappointing as there was ample
time since the first RMT nudge on the issue. But let's move forward and
resolve it before Beta 3.
> * 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.
(I'll save for the downthread comment).
>
> * 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.
[Personal hat]
I'm still not a fan of "empty" but perhaps the formatting around the
"separate command" will help drive a conclusion on this.
>
> * 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.
[Personal hat]
+1 for a new command. The proposal above seems reasonable.
Thanks,
Jonathan