Re: somebody working on: Prevent default re-use of sysids for dropped users and groups?

Am 06.12.2004 um 23:27 schrieb Tom Lane:

> schmidtm <schmidtm(at)mock-software(dot)de> writes:
>> Do I get that right: the only reason to do max(sysid) or a
>> user-supplied ID in CreateUser() (commands/user.c) is that we don't
>> have the ability to get sequences over the *.BKI/initdb mechanism?
>
> No, that's not quite the direction of the problem. The real reason
> those facilities are there is so that you can deliberately create a
> user
> having a previously-used sysid. And the only reason why that is needed
> is that we don't have dependency tracking for references to users and
> groups. If you could be certain that there were no remaining
> references
> to a userid when it is dropped, there would be no need to be able to
> resurrect it. And that would mean that we could forget the whole sysid
> assignment mess and just use the regular OID generator to create unique
> IDs for users and groups.
>
> Using a shared sequence instead of max(sysid) would be merely an
> incremental improvement in the existing sysid assignment rules --- it
> wouldn't eliminate the entire kluge at one blow.
>
> So if Alvaro's thing works out, the shared-sequence problem becomes
> moot.
> Probably that's a good reason not to spend time on it just yet.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

makes totally sense to me. Let's wait for Alvaro's stuff.

By the way: Do you have an idea about a small or
medium sized task from the TODO-List for a newbee, which gets me up to
speed?(!Win32)

The TODO-List is a good starting point, but I cannot figure out who
works on what.

cheers,

Matthias

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthias Schmidt
Viehtriftstr. 49

67346 Speyer

Tel.: +49 6232 4867
Fax.: +49 6232 640089