MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFCRh-_VwScttZi4R8grSd-b=7qguAnSzXp_+jbdpUkp=TfxPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ9xe=ttSfESR=z2YZycow8DubyfQeOgOzMDUCE95f2vN-TzFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac0884a4-daee-465e-bc82-8e3585998053@ewie.name> <CAFCRh--uBYcJ0gyBakSAzby0CmM2gvjo4Wa9OF79Od+-PXQP0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <f65faa53285ca29541356809ee1c49b7ed04a33a.camel@cybertec.at>
 <3079980.1727103295@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAFCRh--cXUafqTO8eANpQh2Bve+1o7YtWSC1+F8aQ9rvA+MbUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c2456af3-bafb-407a-8616-13f760b5fcab@aklaver.com> <CAFCRh-8=zWRpDXiVUUqtFN5F=xhYUqqtieA8Hg0NiCxqe+sESQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <E0C10F50-832E-43BB-AF10-C7D8DC057D9F@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0C10F50-832E-43BB-AF10-C7D8DC057D9F@enterprisedb.com>
From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 15:45:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFCRh--eBdLugZWSdyfwSihSPiKbqvBfnJOgO6YBYvxTA8AeBw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Customize psql prompt to show current_role
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Raphael_Salguero_Arag=C3=B3n?= <raphael.salguero@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>, 
	Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>, 
	Asad Ali <asadalinagri@gmail.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFCRh--eBdLugZWSdyfwSihSPiKbqvBfnJOgO6YBYvxTA8AeBw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 3:14=E2=80=AFPM Raphael Salguero Arag=C3=B3n
<raphael.salguero@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Am 23.09.2024 um 17:37 schrieb Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>:
> > I'd be glad to use Pavel's proposed %N. =E2=80=94DD
> I just wanted to add that we are also supporting a larger customer with e=
xactly the same request.
> Perhaps this increases the value of the adjustment a little more :)

Hi. Thanks for sharing Raphael. That's a 3rd notch Tom! :)
So is it the proverbial "third time's a charm" and the community would
revise its initial rejection?
I keep making that point, but the fact this is entirely opt-in,
mitigates the "expensive" argument IMHO.
FWIW. Thank you for considering this RFC again, especially since
there's a patch for it. Respectfully, --DD