| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Groups and roles |
| Date: | 2003-06-10 17:45:09 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0306101859160.2367-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> 1. Do we want to someday allow groups to have groups as members? (Seems
> reasonable to me.)
I agree.
> 2. Are there any other differences between groups and roles? (I'm not
> sure about this one.)
One other difference I found is that roles can be enabled or disabled (as
session state). According to the SQL standard, only one role can be
active at once, but I think this is useless. According to the Oracle
documentation, it seems that in Oracle many roles can be active (namely
all of those granted to you), but they can be selectively enabled or
disabled. This seems like a reasonable feature, but it's not terribly
important.
Another issue is that users and roles share a namespace. We might have to
deal with that sometime, but it's not a problem as far as the information
schema is concerned.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-06-10 17:45:50 | Re: Groups and roles |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-06-10 17:36:18 | Re: Function returns composite type |