| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Column-Level Privileges |
| Date: | 2009-01-23 00:28:37 |
| Message-ID: | 21885.1232670517@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> One thing that just occured to me is that we could, should we want to,
> move the column-level privs over into the 'Access privileges' column by
> just adding them on after the table-level privs. We would want to make
> sure the table-level privs come first and maybe have some seperator to
> indicate that the following are column-level privs.
> That might make the display nicer on 80-col systems, though personally
> I like larger windows. :)
Well, the examples I've looked at fit in 80 columns, but it's true that
all the identifiers involved were pretty short. The alternative I think
you're suggesting is
Access privileges
Schema | Name | Type | Access privileges
--------+------+-------+---------------------------
public | foo | table | postgres=arwdDxt/postgres
: joe=r/postgres
: bar:
: joe=a/postgres
: baz:
: joe=w/postgres
(1 row)
which is definitely more compact horizontally, but I think it's harder
to follow. It's also *less* compact vertically, which is not a
negligible consideration either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-01-23 00:36:48 | Re: Column-Level Privileges |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-01-23 00:17:44 | Re: Column-Level Privileges |