OK, patch reverted at request of Tom and Peter. Please propose a more
generalitzed soluion. Thanks.
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Dear Tom,
> > http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/functions-misc.html
> > Arguably these functions do not belong right there, but that's hardly a
> > reason to think that they do not need documentation.
> Sure. I was planing to add something anyway.
> > Personally, though, I think that Peter's original objection was right
> > on. We shouldn't be exporting these functions at all; it is right to
> > treat aclitem as an opaque type.
> I disagree strongly on this point.
> As I stated previously, it should a general principle that all information
> about internal configuration should be available from SQL, and better if
> in a relationnal form. This is among the "10 rules" of what a relationnal
> DB should do, as far as I can remember.
> Otherwise, it means that you do not trust SQL and the relationnal DB
> as a general tool. As a leading developper in a RDB system, I cannot
> believe that;-)
> > The problem with allowing computations on aclitems to occur in
> > client-side code
> I'm developping some "pg_advisor" stuff to check for many things in the
> database. YOU decided that all that should not be on the server side.
> Fine, I agree. Now if you want to keep things opaque in the server...
> > is that we will be locking ourselves into the present representation of
> > access rights, which is pretty durn foolish.
> I perfectly agree with you on this point;-)
> The "pg_hba.conf" code is pretty disappointing. I mean by that low
> level, no real internal data structure
> The aclitem stuff violates all rules I teach to my student about
> sound design: it is a array (no NF1) the same field references keys
> in different arrays, a null array means something implicitly, aso.
> > considering that we *know* we need to make changes in that area pretty
> > soon to move closer to SQL compliance (the whole users/groups/roles
> > business). The correct approach is not to export low-level access and
> > put functionality in the client, but to put the functionality on the
> > server side where it's convenient to change it at the same time we
> > reimplement ACLs.
> Well, it would be no big stuff to adapt this.
> > Ergo, my recommendation is to revert this change altogether.
> You're the boss.
> > Fabien should figure out the high-level description of what he wants to
> > know (at a level similar to has_table_privilege() and its ilk) and
> > propose server-side functions to implement that.
> Sure, I did that already.
> I built a plpgsql functions to return appropriate relations that I can
> query. However this plpgsql needs to access your "opaque" type. I can load
> the functions, but they seem to me that they belong to the backend.
> "has_*_privileges()" is NOT relationnal as it hides queries, so it does
> not really suit queries that want to deal with all possible users/groups
> and all possible objects. Moreover, I need access to the raw information
> to check for its consistency, not the derived functionnal stuff.
> Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2004-05-02 13:52:43|
|Subject: Re: SET WITHOUT CLUSTER patch|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2004-05-02 13:36:32|
|Subject: Re: Fixed directory locations in installs|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-05-02 13:39:51|
|Subject: pgsql-server/src/include/catalog catversion.h|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-05-02 13:38:28|
|Subject: pgsql-server/src backend/utils/adt/acl.c inclu ...|