| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tal Walter <talw(at)sqreamtech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Wanting to learn about pgsql design decision |
| Date: | 2016-08-02 15:23:37 |
| Message-ID: | 27514.1470151417@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tal Walter <talw(at)sqreamtech(dot)com> writes:
> - Why in the roles system, user are actually roles with login attribute
> and not a separate entity.
Groups and users used to be separate concepts, actually, a long time ago.
We got rid of that because it was a PITA; in particular, grants to groups
had to be represented separately from grants to individual users. Looking
at the git history, that happened in mid-2005, so you might trawl the
pgsql-hackers archives from around that time for discussion.
> - Why to read from a table, both a usage permission on the schema and a
> read access permission on the table is needed?
Because the SQL standard says so. You might want to get a copy. While
the "official" releases cost lots o' money, draft versions are freely
available on the net, and are generally close enough.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-08-02 15:43:32 | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-02 14:57:14 | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |