| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: role self-revocation |
| Date: | 2022-03-12 00:03:06 |
| Message-ID: | 599FBB8F-CD41-4E31-9DD3-A93FD99CEC30@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mar 11, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>
> I do think that’s reasonable … and believe I suggested it about 3 messages ago in this thread. ;) (step #3 I think it was? Or maybe 4).
Yes, and you mentioned it to me off-list.
I'm soliciting a more concrete specification for what you are proposing. To me, that means understanding how the SQL spec behavior that you champion translates into specific changes. You specified some of this in steps #1 through #5, but I'd like a clearer indication of how many of those (#1 alone, both #1 and #2, or what?) constitute a competing idea to the idea of role ownership, and greater detail about how each of those steps translate into specific behavior changes in postgres. Your initial five-step email seems to be claiming that #1 by itself is competitive, but to me it seems at least #1 and #2 would be required.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-03-12 00:04:48 | Re: wal_compression=zstd |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-03-11 23:55:16 | Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw |