| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jim Nasby <jim(dot)nasby(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Things I don't like about \du's "Attributes" column |
| Date: | 2024-02-16 21:44:50 |
| Message-ID: | 3526609.1708119890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Per the recent bug report, we should probably add something like (ignored)
> after the 50 connections for role1 since they are not allowed to login so
> the value is indeed ignored. It is ignored to zero as opposed to unlimited
> for the Superuser so maybe a different word (not allowed)?
Not sure it's worth worrying about, but if we do I'd not bother to
show the irrelevant value at all: it's just making the display wider
to little purpose. We could make the column read as "(irrelevant)",
or leave it blank. I'd argue the same for password expiration
time BTW.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maiquel Grassi | 2024-02-16 21:48:16 | RE: Psql meta-command conninfo+ |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-02-16 21:37:53 | Re: Things I don't like about \du's "Attributes" column |