| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Support comments on FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER and SERVER objects. |
| Date: | 2011-04-05 21:04:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1302037461.27487.44.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2011-04-05 at 14:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Supporting user mappings in COMMENT, EXTENSION, etc is not so critical
> that we should push a possibly misdesigned notion of ownership into
> the system for it. Better to take our time and think about that.
>
> (BTW, it might be useful to reconsider casts while we are thinking about
> this. Those don't have a proper notion of ownership either. I'm a bit
> inclined to think that we should just bite the bullet and add owner
> columns to both these catalogs. But, again, let's not be hasty.)
As I said elsewhere, I think of user mappings as similar to role grants.
An owner there would be similar to a grantor, so it would make sense.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-04-05 21:16:41 | pgsql: Update key words table for 9.1 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-05 19:17:35 | pgsql: Repair some flakiness in CheckTargetForConflictsIn. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-04-05 21:17:48 | Re: GSoC proposal: Fast GiST index build |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-04-05 20:59:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Uppercase SGML entity declarations |