From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |
Date: | 2002-04-04 15:11:36 |
Message-ID: | 23436.1017933096@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> PUBLIC can be made less reserved easily. See patch below.
Well, we could do that, but this patch seems an ugly way to do it;
we have too many classifications of keywords already, and I don't
want to introduce another one.
I'd be inclined to make PUBLIC not a keyword at all, and instead have
the production grantee -> ColId do this in its action:
if (strcmp($1, "public") == 0)
create PUBLIC PrivGrantee node
else
create normal PrivGrantee node
An objection to this is that you couldn't make a user named "public"
(with the quotes), since PUBLIC and "public" would look the same to
the action ... but that seems like a good restriction anyway. I'd
be quite willing to tweak CREATE USER to forbid that name.
I suppose it's a judgment call which is uglier. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-04 15:13:18 | Re: What's the CURRENT schema ? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-04 14:23:39 | Re: timeout implementation issues |