From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles |
Date: | 2005-06-30 14:27:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.63.0506301618150.3461@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Bruno,
>> The standard talks about 2 distinct concepts: USER and ROLE (4.34). I'm
>> not sure it is a good idea to drop the user concept to replace it by role.
>> If you do so, you may miss something about what roles are about.
>
> I think it is a good idea to make users synonymous with roles with
> regard to privileges. This will make checking for access simpler
> and mistakes less likely. The special part of being a user in addition
> to a role is that being a user allows for authentication.
There are two distinct issues : implementation and design/feature.
I'm arguing on the feature, as I wish per-catalog ROLEs, which cannot be
fused with per-cluster USERs.
I agree with you that the current implementation for a per-cluster role is
very reasonnable or even witty. It just does not provide the feature I'm
looking for, namely managing privileges locally to a database, without
interference from one database to another.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-06-30 14:43:29 | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles |
Previous Message | Ing. Jhon Carrillo - Caracas, Venezuela | 2005-06-30 14:17:52 | 3des functions? |