From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
Date: | 2014-10-16 20:56:38 |
Message-ID: | 20141016205637.GA7246@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > My feeling is basically this- either we make a clean break to the new
> > syntax and catalog representation, or we just use the same approach the
> > existing attriubtes use. Long term, I think your proposed syntax and an
> > int64 representation is better but it'll mean a lot of client code that
> > has to change. I don't really like the idea of changing the syntax but
> > not the representation, nor am I thrilled with the idea of supporting
> > both syntaxes, and changing the syntax without changing the
> > representation just doesn't make sense to me as I think we'd end up
> > wanting to change it later, making clients have to update their code
> > twice.
>
> I don't see any reason why it has to be both or neither.
I was thinking we would change the catalogs and implement the new syntax
for new and old settings, but also keep the old syntax working as a
backward compatibility measure. I don't see what's so terrible about
continuing to support the old syntax; we do that in COPY and EXPLAIN,
for example.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-10-16 20:56:48 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-16 20:54:19 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |