From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
Date: | 2005-07-21 19:40:59 |
Message-ID: | 22238.1121974859@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Another issue: I like the has_role() function and in fact think it needs
to come in multiple variants just like has_table_privilege and friends:
has_role(name, name)
has_role(name, oid)
has_role(oid, name)
has_role(oid, oid)
has_role(name) -- implicitly has_role(current_user, ...)
has_role(oid)
However I'm a bit dubious about whether "has_role" isn't an invasion of
application namespace. pg_has_role would be better, but we have the
(mis) precedent of has_table_privilege. What do you think about calling
it "has_role_privilege"?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-07-21 19:53:52 | Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 19:34:39 | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-07-21 19:53:52 | Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 19:34:39 | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |