Re: What's the CURRENT schema ?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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