"Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@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