| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |
| Date: | 2014-12-23 15:26:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20141223152630.GM1768@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Again, I suppose I should have objected earlier, but I really seriously
> doubt that this is a good idea.
Ugh. I thought we had a consensus that this was the accepted way
forward; that's my reading of the old thread,
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20141016133218(dot)GW28859(at)tamriel(dot)snowman(dot)net#20141016133218(dot)GW28859@tamriel.snowman.net
Breaking clients was considered acceptable, which is why some of these
functions were introduced. There were some differing opinions; Simon
for instance suggested the use of an array rather than a bitmask, but
that would have broken clients all the same.
If there's strong opposition to this whole line of development, I can
revert. Anyone else wants to give an opinion?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-12-23 15:34:47 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-23 15:18:02 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-12-23 15:28:35 | Re: Proposal "VACUUM SCHEMA" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-12-23 15:18:02 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use a bitmask to represent role attributes |