Re: Groups and roles

It would be nice to merge them, but with Unix having separate
namespaces, I am not sure it is a good idea to diverge from that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Another issue is that users and roles share a namespace. We might have to
> > deal with that sometime, but it's not a problem as far as the information
> > schema is concerned.
>
> I've been thinking for awhile that the ACL code would be simplified if
> userids and groupids shared a numberspace, or whatever you want to call
> it (ie, a given ID number cannot belong to both a user and a group).
> I think that implementing that would require at least a partial merge
> of pg_shadow and pg_group --- unless you want to get into implementing
> cross-table unique indexes.
>
> If we agreed that they share a namespace as well, the merge could be
> taken further. Perhaps more usefully, the GRANT/REVOKE syntax and the
> display format for ACL lists could be simplified, since there'd be no
> need for a syntactic marker as to whether a given name is a user or a
> group.
>
> Not sure how many people would complain if they couldn't have a user and
> a group of the same name.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073