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

From: David Zhang <david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: "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: 2023-02-15 22:52:20
Message-ID: e79436ce-2321-8ec3-7eab-a8e352ec7085@highgo.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2023-02-15 1:37 p.m., David G. Johnston wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 2:31 PM David Zhang <david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca> wrote:
>
> There is a default built-in role `pg_monitor` and the behavior
> changed after the patch. If `\dg+` and `\du+` is treated as the
> same, and `make check` all pass, then I assume there is no test
> case to verify the output of `duS+`. My point is should we
> consider add a test case?
>
> I mean, either you accept the change in how this meta-command presents
> its information or you don't.  I don't see how a test case is
> particularly beneficial.  Or, at least the pg_monitor role is not
> special in this regard.  Alice changed too and you don't seem to be
> including it in your complaint.
Good improvement, +1.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2023-02-15 23:13:35 Re: [PATCH] Add pretty-printed XML output option
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-02-15 22:46:30 Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] Support using "all" for the db user in pg_ident.conf