| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Zhang <david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: psql: Add role's membership options to the \du+ command |
| Date: | 2023-04-05 14:24:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwanYpV_0quPhRMpVoyUew4-4to0u1E0uXMNY4=ODPZHWQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:58 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> > What if this long output will be available only for \du+, and for \du
> > just show distinct (without duplicates)
> > roles in the current array format? For those, who don't care about these
> > new membership options, nothing will change.
> > Those, who need details will use the + modifier.
> > ?
>
> I kind of like that. Would we change to newlines in the Attributes
> field in both \du and \du+? (I'm +1 for that, but maybe others aren't.)
>
>
If we don't change the \du "Member of" column display (aside from removing
duplicates) I'm disinclined to change the Attributes column.
I too am partial to only exposing this detail on the extended (+) display.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-05 14:30:56 | Re: GUC for temporarily disabling event triggers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-05 14:24:14 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |