From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Create Group |
Date: | 1999-12-14 09:39:29 |
Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C603FDC1BC@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> First, the syntax I had in mind:
>
> CREATE GROUP name [ WITH [ SYSID id ] [ USER name1, name2, ... ] ]
> ALTER GROUP name WITH SYSID id /* changes sysid */
> ALTER GROUP name ADD USER name1, name2, ...
> ALTER GROUP name DROP USER name1, name2, ...
> DROP GROUP name
>
> Please protest now or hold your peace for at least one release. :)
>
I think a group can be interpreted somehow like a priviledge.
As such the statement to add or remove a user from a group
would be a "grant" statement.
The standard mutters something about "role"s
(again haven't looked it up)
I don't like the word role instead of group, but maybe if there
is a standard we should use it.
Informix and Oracle use the keyword role for groups,
and use grant/revoke to administer them.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 1999-12-14 10:05:05 | AW: [HACKERS] Volunteer: Large Tuples / Tuple chaining |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 1999-12-14 08:58:57 | RE: [HACKERS] Volunteer: Large Tuples / Tuple chaining |