"Jonathan S. Katz" <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:
* I agree that the "tabular" format looks nicer and has fewer i18n
issues than the other proposals.
* Personally I could do without the "empty" business, but that seems
unnecessary in the tabular format; an empty column will serve fine.
* 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"?
* Parenthetically, the "Attributes" column of \du is a complete
disaster, lacking not only conceptual but even notational consistency.
(Who decided that some items belonged on their own line and others
not?) I suppose it's way too late to redesign that for v16. But
I think we'd have more of a free hand to clean that up if we weren't
trying to shoehorn role grants into the same display.
regards, tom lane