Pavel Luzanov <p.luza...@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> On 08.07.2023 20:07, Tom Lane wrote
>> 3. Not sure about use of LEFT JOIN in the query. That will mean we
>> get a row out even for roles that have no grants, which seems like
>> clutter. The LEFT JOINs to r and g are fine, but I suggest changing
>> the first join to a plain join.
> Can you explain why LEFT JOIN to r and g are fine after removing LEFT
> JOIN to pam?
The idea with that, IMO, is to do something at least minimally sane
if there's a bogus role OID in pg_auth_members. With plain joins,
the output row would disappear and you'd have no clue that anything
is wrong. With left joins, you get a row with a null column and
there's reason to investigate why.
Since such a case should not happen in normal use, I don't think it
counts for discussions about compactness of output. However, this
is also an argument for using a plain not left join between pg_roles
and pg_auth_members: if we do it as per the earlier patch, then
nulls in the output are common and wouldn't draw your attention.
(Indeed, I think broken and not-broken pg_auth_members contents
would be indistinguishable.)
> I plan to replace it to:
> pg_catalog.concat_ws(', ',
> CASE WHEN pam.admin_option THEN 'ADMIN' END,
> CASE WHEN m.rolinherit THEN 'INHERIT' END,
> 'SET'
> ) AS "Options",
That does not seem right. Is it impossible for pam.set_option
to be false? Even if it is, should this code assume that?
regards, tom lane
