| From: | "Mike Mascari" <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: copying perms to another user |
| Date: | 2003-01-14 18:28:07 |
| Message-ID: | 008901c2bbfa$af82d3c0$0102a8c0@mascari.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>
>> While I haven't thought about it very hard, it seems to me that a role
>> might be equivalent or nearly so to a group. If so, we might be able
>> to support roles with little more than some syntactic-sugar work ...
>A few other changes, like allowing ownership of an object to be a group
>(role) rather than strictly a user.
Also, at least in Oracle, one can grant ROLEs to other ROLEs. I don't know if that is what the SQL standard says though:
GRANT role1 TO role2;
Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Liu | 2003-01-14 20:55:02 | 7.3.1 on linux |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-01-14 18:26:15 | Re: \d type queries - why not views in system catalog?!? |