Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 5:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 5:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.