| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs |
| Date: | 2022-03-17 13:54:57 |
| Message-ID: | c87b70d9-6097-cf27-ba8b-bfb041b2e264@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16.03.22 19:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm also fairly allergic to the way that this patch has decided to assign
> multi-word names to privilege types (ie SET VALUE, ALTER SYSTEM). There
> is no existing precedent for that, and I think it's going to break
> client-side code that we don't need to break. It's not coincidental that
> this forces weird changes in rules about whitespace in the has_privilege
> functions, for example; and if you think that isn't going to cause
> problems I think you are wrong. Perhaps we could just use "SET" and
> "ALTER", or "SET" and "SYSTEM"?
I think Oracle and MS SQL Server have many multi-word privilege names.
So users are quite used to that. And if we want to add more complex
privileges, we might run out of sensible single words eventually. So I
would not exclude this approach.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Japin Li | 2022-03-17 14:07:32 | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-03-17 13:52:34 | Re: Granting SET and ALTER SYSTE privileges for GUCs |