| From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | cca5507 <cca5507(at)qq(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, preTham <prezza672(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why is_admin_of_role() use ROLERECURSE_MEMBERS rather than ROLERECURSE_PRIVS? |
| Date: | 2026-05-06 18:56:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAOYmi+kKVPKXcR3WRswu1JES6pte92THaE-2CQG=_fhmf9RZ0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 9:48 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't have any better ideas for how to solve it, but I also fear for the
> day when I have to explain these subtle differences in behavior to a casual
> user...
(spitballing)
Would it help to name the functions according to what they intend to
let the caller do? is_admin_of_role() -> can_administer_role();
inherits_admin_privs_of_role() -> is_administering_role()?
Alternatively, we have the is_member_* vs has_privs_* division
already, so has_admin_privs_over_role(), or something?
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2026-05-06 20:27:25 | Re: [PATCH] pg_surgery: Fix WAL corruption from concurrent heap_force_kill |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2026-05-06 17:49:10 | Re: Randomize B-Tree page split location to avoid oscillating patterns |