Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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