Re: Per-Database Roles

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Per-Database Roles
Date: 2012-05-22 16:03:06
Message-ID: CAA-aLv4GT3YMjMFduLtpeXAgLwTF8Uni6gErQNr8NH_ypxRQBw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 22 May 2012 16:57, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> On May22, 2012, at 16:09 , Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>>> Conflicts would occur where localrolename matches an existing local
>>> role name within the same database, or a global role name, but not a
>>> local role name within another database.  The problem with this,
>>> however, is that creating global roles would need conflict checks
>>> against local roles in every database, unless a manifest of all local
>>> roles were registered globally.
>>
>> Yeah.  The same type of issue arises for the roles' OIDs.  You'd really
>> want local and global roles to have nonconflicting OIDs, else it's
>> necessary to carry around an indication of which type each role is;
>> which would be more or less a show-stopper in terms of the number of
>> catalogs and internal APIs affected.  But I don't currently see any
>> nice way to guarantee that if each database has a private table of
>> local roles.
>
> Maybe we could simply make all global role's OIDs even, and all local ones
> odd, or something like that.

Wouldn't that instantly make all previous versions of database
clusters un-upgradable?

--
Thom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-05-22 16:03:43 Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE
Previous Message Susanne Ebrecht 2012-05-22 16:00:36 Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE