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

Re: RFC: roles

From: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: roles
Date: 2005-08-01 14:15:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
Dave Page wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de] 
>>Sent: 01 August 2005 14:56
>>To: Dave Page
>>Cc: pgadmin-hackers
>>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] RFC: roles
>>So we have:
>>- Groups/Roles and Users as object collection
>>- Users will contain all roles with LOGIN
>>- Groups/Roles the rest
> Hmm, I'd only been thinking about the security tabs so far. I'd be
> inclined to have just 
> Roles
>   -> Role 1
>   -> Role 2
> in the treeview, and not try to make any distinction between 'users' and
> 'groups' at that level. The server doesn't, so we probably shouldn't
> either. I suppose we could use a modified icon for those with LOGIN, for
> convenience though, but I definately think there should be only Roles at
> the top.

I'm thinking different here, because you're using roles and users in 
different situations.
When editing roles, you're planning the access scheme layout without 
necessarily having certain persons in mind. After the app is installed, 
you won't touch roles any more.
In contrast, adding users and assigning them existing roles is a 
day-by-day business. That's why I'd like them separated.

  (BTW, the icons for Roles/Role are already done, so just use a
> placeholder for now).

I don't see them in SVN... :-)


In response to

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-08-01 14:30:37
Subject: Re: RFC: roles
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-08-01 14:09:30
Subject: Re: RFC: roles

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group