Re: Role Attribute Bitmask Catalog Representation

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Role Attribute Bitmask Catalog Representation
Date: 2014-11-25 17:58:28
Message-ID: 20141125175827.GO28859@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Adam Brightwell (adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com) wrote:
> An array representation was also suggested by Simon (
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+U5nMJGVdz6jX_YBJk99Nj7mWfGfVEmxtdc44LVHq64gkN8qg@mail.gmail.com)
> Obviously there are pro's and con's to either approach. I'm not married to
> it, but felt that a bitmask was certainly more efficient. However, I know
> that an array would be more extensible given that we could envision more
> than 64 role attributes. I'm uncertain if that is a potential reality or
> not, but I believe it is certainly worth considering.

I'd be pretty surprised if we actually got up to 64, and if we did we
could change it to a bytea. It wouldn't be the cleanest thing, but
using an array would change pg_authid from "same size as today" to
"quite a bit larger" and I don't really see the advantage. We use a bit
field for the GRANT-based permissions and people have to use functions
to decode those too and while it's not ideal, I don't feel like we hear
people complaining about it.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Shulgin 2014-11-25 18:07:54 Re: Replication connection URI?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-11-25 17:38:44 Re: Function array_agg(array)