From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: regrole type? |
Date: | 2012-12-26 17:34:11 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBNGUTo7Hk7E2AqahA5FaV2gQyUnXbMKHM_Y2nhHt9CXg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/12/26 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 2012/12/25 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> * We can reduce to half lot of functions \df has_* (84 functions)
>>
>> Not without breaking existing queries. A function taking regrole might
>> look like it substitutes for one taking a text-string user name as long
>> as you only pass literal constants to it, but as soon as you pass
>> non-constants you'll find out different. (Unless your plan is to also
>> create an implicit cast from text to regrole, which strikes me as a
>> seriously bad idea.)
I was little bit surprised so regproc, regprocedure is not used on
SQL level in our builtin functions - and I use both types often in our
custom queries.
So it can be similar with regrole and regaclrole - it can be addressed
for more orthogonal work with roles
I am sending patch, but I will not assign to commitfest now.
Regards
Pavel
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
regrole.patch | application/octet-stream | 10.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2012-12-26 17:50:03 | Re: Feature Request: pg_replication_master() |
Previous Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2012-12-26 14:54:57 | Re: too much pgbench init output |