From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql-server: Have \dn+ show permissions and description |
Date: | 2004-07-14 04:16:57 |
Message-ID: | 22284.1089778617@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The inconsistency is that there is a separate "show permissions" command
>> for tables, but for schemas it's now under "extra information". Now we
>> can't be sure where the permission information for the next object will
>> end up. That's not good.
> With \dp having a schema column, how would we display permissions there?
IIRC Peter had suggested inventing a series of \zX commands to parallel
the \dX commands. I don't have a problem with that in the abstract, but
who's going to step up and do it exactly? The existence of \dp would
create a bit of a wart in the consistency of things anyway, so it's not
like we would have a solution that's both 100% self-consistent and 100%
upward compatible.
Personally I don't think that the \-command output has to be totally
consistent from version to version --- we've never intended it to be
machine-readable only person-readable. So I think the CVS-tip \dn+
behavior is okay until we get around to inventing \zX or adding
permissions to the other \d+ commands or whatever the long-term answer
turns out to be.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | User Dpage | 2004-07-14 14:55:37 | pginstaller - pginst: Added JDBC Driver |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-14 02:28:31 | Re: pgsql-server: Have \dn+ show permissions and description |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-14 04:20:22 | Re: PITR Archive Recovery plus WIP PITR |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-14 04:08:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Is "trust" really a good default? |