| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
| Date: | 2005-07-21 20:42:49 |
| Message-ID: | 42E008C9.3030708@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
>However I'm a bit dubious about whether "has_role" isn't an invasion of
>application namespace. pg_has_role would be better, but we have the
>(mis) precedent of has_table_privilege. What do you think about calling
>it "has_role_privilege"?
>
>
>
>
Do we need to follow a bad precedent for the sake of consistency? If
forced to choose, in general I would prefer to sacrifice consistency.
cheers
andrew (old Emersonian)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2005-07-21 20:47:29 | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-07-21 20:34:30 | Re: Imprecision of DAYS_PER_MONTH |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 20:55:11 | Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 20:30:06 | Re: [PATCHES] Roles - SET ROLE Updated |