Re: Groups and roles

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Groups and roles
Date: 2003-06-16 05:24:42
Message-ID: 26649.1055741082@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> I think the other requirement of roles is that they are able to own objects.
> ie. we need to allow groups to own objects.

Hm. That seems to be another reason to unify usesysid and grosysid into
a single unique something-id. Which probably implies unifying pg_shadow
and pg_group into one table.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-06-16 05:53:12 Re: enumeration type?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-06-16 05:18:24 Re: ECPG CVS version problems