Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: RFC: roles

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,ennixo <ennixo(at)free(dot)fr>
Subject: Re: RFC: roles
Date: 2005-08-01 16:52:07
Message-ID: 42EE5337.8010109@pse-consulting.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
Dave Page wrote:

> [CC'd to Niko as he probably want's to know about this as well]
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de] 
>>Sent: 01 August 2005 15:15
>>To: Dave Page
>>Cc: pgadmin-hackers
>>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] RFC: roles
>>
>>I'm thinking different here, because you're using roles and users in 
>>different situations.
>>When editing roles, you're planning the access scheme layout without 
>>necessarily having certain persons in mind. After the app is 
>>installed, 
>>you won't touch roles any more.
>>In contrast, adding users and assigning them existing roles is a 
>>day-by-day business. That's why I'd like them separated.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmmm... What about:
>
>Roles
>  - Login
>    - dave
>    - andreas
>    - niko
>  - Organisational (perhaps something shorter?)
>    - support
>    - finance
>    - admin
>  
>

This sounds like an undesirable stacking of trivial collections.
Login Roles
  - dave
  - andreas
  - niko
Organisational Roles
  - upport
  - nance
  - in

would solve that. Or maybe shorter: Users and Roles :-)

Regards,
Andreas


In response to

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-08-01 18:53:16
Subject: Re: RFC: roles
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-08-01 14:30:37
Subject: Re: RFC: roles

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group