From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
Date: | 2007-05-04 18:57:27 |
Message-ID: | 20070504185727.GA20938@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >> Why is it that we record grantor at all? One could argue that granting
> >> membership in a role is done on behalf of that role and there's no real
> >> need to remember exactly who did it.
>
> > I think you should ask Stephen Frost about that -- added to CC.
>
> > If the grantor bit is not important, then what we should do is just omit
> > emitting the GRANTED BY part in pg_dumpall, which fixes this report.
>
> It's at least something we should reflect on before sweating hard to
> make it work...
I took a look, and concluded that the only bit of code that uses the
grantor at all is pg_dumpall.
Does this means we can remove it altogether? In back branches, we would
take out the pg_dumpall code.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-05-04 19:26:00 | Re: order by question. |
Previous Message | Jose Blanco | 2007-05-04 18:28:17 | Re: order by question. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jaba the mobzy | 2007-05-04 19:28:51 | Re: Bitmap Heap Scan anomaly |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2007-05-04 18:56:10 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Teach tuplesort.c about "top N" sorting, in which only the first |