From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Per-Database Roles |
Date: | 2012-05-22 23:11:47 |
Message-ID: | CAFNqd5XOvD+A-hif0Hezr38LDWcHj5pA=t6Rm+T1_yUMP9N+uQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Josh Berkus (josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com) wrote:
>> The local role is preferred, the same way we allow objects in the local
>> schema to overshadow objects in the global schema.
>
> I would think we'd want the exact opposite. I don't want my global
> 'postgres' user to be overwritten by some local one that the admin of
> this particular DB created..
In object-orientedness, the usual behaviour is for more specific
methods to override the more generic ones, which is reasonable. I'm
not certain which direction is more to be preferred, whether:
a) To consider the global user as a default, to be overridden if possible, or
b) To consider the local user as the default, to be overridden if possible.
They're both tenable positions.
But I think I agree with Stephen, that what's desirable, with global
users, is to use them as the override. They're gonna be expensive,
you should get something for the price :-).
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-23 00:05:03 | Re: Proposal: add new field to ErrorResponse and NoticeResponse |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2012-05-22 23:10:21 | Proposal: add new field to ErrorResponse and NoticeResponse |