| From: | walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fixing CREATEROLE |
| Date: | 2022-11-28 19:42:15 |
| Message-ID: | 935c57b1-aaef-fe3f-5f1e-b5ec36d14442@technowledgy.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David G. Johnston:
> A quick tally of the thread so far:
>
> No Defaults needed: David J., Mark?, Tom?
> Defaults needed - attached to role directly: Robert
> Defaults needed - defined within Default Privileges: Walther?
s/Walther/Wolfgang
> The capability itself seems orthogonal to the rest of the patch to track
> these details better. I think we can "Fix CREATEROLE" without any
> feature regarding optional default behaviors and would suggest this
> patch be so limited and that another thread be started for discussion of
> (assuming a default specifying mechanism is wanted overall) how it
> should look. Let's not let a usability debate distract us from fixing a
> real problem.
+1
I didn't argue for whether defaults are needed in this case or not. I
just said that ADP is better for defaults than role attributes are. Or
the other way around: I think role attributes are not a good way to
express those.
Personally, I'm in the No Defaults needed camp, too.
Best,
Wolfgang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2022-11-28 19:44:54 | Re: Bug in wait time when waiting on nested subtransaction |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-11-28 19:36:22 | Re: fixing CREATEROLE |