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

Re: why restrict role "public" but not "Public"?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: why restrict role "public" but not "Public"?
Date: 2010-08-24 23:04:14
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> I just noticed that we restrict creation of a role named "public", but
> this is case-sensitive -- i.e. we don't restrict roles named PUBLIC,
> etc.

> Is this intended?

Yes.  If you had a role named that, you might think that
should refer to that role.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-08-24 23:22:20
Subject: Re: why restrict role "public" but not "Public"?
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-08-24 22:34:11
Subject: why restrict role "public" but not "Public"?

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