RE: add \dpS to psq [16beta1]

Hi,
Thank you for developing a good feature.
I found while testing PostgreSQL 16 Beta 1 that the output of the \? metacommand did not include \dS, \dpS. 
The attached patch changes the output of the \? meta command to:

Current output
psql=# \? 
  \z      [PATTERN]      same as \dp
  \dp     [PATTERN]      list table, view, and sequence access privileges

Patched output
psql=# \?
  \dp[S]  [PATTERN]      list table, view, and sequence access privileges
  \z[S]   [PATTERN]      same as \dp

Regards,
Noriyoshi Shinoda

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 2:46 AM
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
Cc: Maxim Orlov <orlovmg@gmail.com>; Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>; Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>; Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>; Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>; Pavel Luzanov <p.luzanov@postgrespro.ru>; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: add \dpS to psql

On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 11:18:59AM +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> It might be true that temp tables aren't usually interesting from a 
> permissions point of view, but it's not hard to imagine situations 
> where interesting things do happen. It's also probably the case that 
> most users won't have many temp tables, so I don't think including 
> them by default will be particularly intrusive.
> 
> Also, from a user perspective, I think it would be something of a POLA 
> violation for \dp[S] and \dt[S] to include different sets of tables, 
> though I appreciate that we do that now. There's nothing in the docs 
> to indicate that that's the case.

Agreed.

> Anyway, I've pushed the v2 patch as-is. If anyone feels strongly 
> enough that we should change its behaviour for temp tables, then we 
> can still discuss that.

Thanks!

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com