| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: copying perms to another user |
| Date: | 2003-01-15 21:03:18 |
| Message-ID: | 200301152103.h0FL3IF06879@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
>
> > We have roles?
>
> Until two days ago I was under the impression that roles were schema
> objects, but apparently this is not the case, and it seems that roles are
> really just an extension of our group concept.
Yep. We have already beefed up group handling quite a bit in the past
few releases, so if we can take it the extra steps needed, we can just
make ROLE and GROUP synonymous and be done with it.
I think the one missing item mentioned was for group ownership of an
object. However, if we give group _permission_ to the object, I am not
sure why ownership is an issue. Are there certain permission we can't
give to the group?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-15 21:07:41 | Re: inet regression test |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-01-15 20:31:25 | Re: inet regression test |