From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
Date: | 2014-10-16 19:27:02 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobkYXNOWKEKzX2qGPSr_nvacFGueV=orxND-xmZvOVYvg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> Ah, good point. Using ALTER ROLE is better. Maybe we should do ALTER
>> ROLE .. [ ADD | DROP ] CAPABILITY x. That would still require making
>> CAPABILITY a keyword, but it could be unreserved.
>
> That works for me- would we change the existing role attributes to be
> configurable this way and change everything over to using an int64 in
> the catalog? Unless I'm having trouble counting, I think that would
> actually result in the pg_authid catalog not changing in size at all
> while giving us the ability to add these capabilities and something like
> 50 others if we had cause to.
I definitely think we should support the new syntax for the existing
attributes. I could go either way on whether to change the catalog
storage for the existing attributes. Some people might prefer to
avoid the backward compatibility break, and I can see that argument.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Banck | 2014-10-16 19:31:00 | Re: Log notice that checkpoint is to be written on shutdown |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-16 19:09:46 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |