Re: Open items

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Bruce Momjian (pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> Here are our open items. How hard are we going to be about the cutoff
>> date? Do we give people the weekend to complete some items?

> I'm not sure what else Tom's already working on wrt roles,

Right at the moment I'm focused on cleaning up serious issues in the
patch-as-committed (ie, the kind of stuff that might make Marc claim
this should get reverted ;-)). I still need to re-read user.c and
acl.c in some detail --- I'm concerned about the locking rules and
ensuring that circular role references can't be created; and I think
the permissions checking during CreateRole is probably wrong; and
I really want to separate superuser from createrole properly. And
information_schema is probably a few bricks shy of a load yet. After
that, there's pg_dump support, documentation, and regression tests.
Nothing terribly critical, but we'd require most of this stuff from
anyone else submitting a patch now, so I feel on the hook to fix it
having committed the patch prematurely.

> ... We really should also support SET ROLE. Perhaps if I have
> time I'll go through the SQL spec looking at the specific requirements
> of 'Basic Role Support' and 'Extended Role Support' and come up with
> what we've got, what we're missing, and then we can decide which are
> features, which are bugfixes, and what we can claim in the docs.

Yes, that'd be a fine thing to do.

regards, tom lane