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

Re: Reimplementing permission checks for rules

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reimplementing permission checks for rules
Date: 2000-09-28 08:49:58
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0009281046010.363-100000@peter (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> OK.  BTW, what is the status of the changeover you proposed re using
> OIDs instead of int4 userids as the unique identifiers for users?

Because of the pg_dumpall thing that had to be postponed for another
release, otherwise the users would be associated to the wrong groups on
restore.

> In other words, should my field be type Oid or type int4?

Interesting question, actually, because the master uid global variable has
always been a Oid type but it was mostly referenced as int4.  Considering
that we have a whole oid/int4 mess and that you can't have negative uid's
anyway, you might as well go for the Oid now if you don't mind.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-09-28 08:52:38
Subject: Re: The Data Base System is in recovery mode
Previous:From: Jon FranzDate: 2000-09-28 03:53:44
Subject: Re: Roadmap for a Win32 port

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