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

Re: RFC: roles

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: "pgadmin-hackers" <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: roles
Date: 2005-08-01 13:30:50
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4AC968D@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de] 
> Sent: 01 August 2005 14:14
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] RFC: roles
> 
> 
> How ugly! The icon can signal it.

Yes, that is preferable, however in most places (ie. combo boxes) the
icons got lost when pgAdmin 2 was rewritten as pgAdmin 3.

> Still questions open:
> Hierarchical or flat view? Separate grouping for login/nologin roles, 
> roles with/without childs?

I think a flat view, as it could get very messy with 1 role being a
member of more than one other.

> Actually, I don't find it good practice to use a role as 
> group and login 
> at the same time. I'd be inclined to name all roles with 
> login without 
> childs a user, the rest role/group, grouping them accordingly.

No, I agree it's bad practice, but it might happen (I assume - haven't
tried it though) as far as I can see from the docs. In fact, they say:

"A role having LOGIN privilege can be thought of as a user", so I think
we should not count hild roles, and just rely on LOGIN.

Of course, this seems like a good candidate for a guru hint.

/D

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: svnDate: 2005-08-01 13:45:10
Subject: SVN Commit by andreas: r4385 - trunk/pgadmin3/src/schema
Previous:From: svnDate: 2005-08-01 13:20:34
Subject: SVN Commit by dpage: r4384 - in trunk/pgadmin3/src: frm include include/images

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