| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: alter user/role CURRENT_USER |
| Date: | 2014-10-28 14:57:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZvzLXf8OpszVQqz-WpDbGt22mZ4Yong+WvAn6Vw5ryJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Adam Brightwell
<adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com> wrote:
> Taking a step back, I'm still not sure I understand the need for this
> feature or the use case. It seems to have started as a potential fix to an
> inconsistency between ALTER USER and ALTER ROLE syntax (which I think I
> could see some value in). However, I think it has been taken beyond just
> resolving the inconsistency and started to cross over into feature creep.
> Is the intent simply to resolve inconsistencies between what is now an alias
> of another command? Or is it to add new functionality? I think the
> original proposal needs to be revisited and more time needs to be spent
> defining the scope and purpose of this patch.
+1. I've been reading this thread with some bemusement, but couldn't
find a way articulate what you just said nearly as well as you just
said it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-10-28 15:01:13 | Re: [WIP Patch] Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-28 14:53:49 | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |