| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas(dot)zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for enhancements of privilege system |
| Date: | 2000-05-29 17:11:49 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0005291754030.359-100000@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Zeugswetter writes:
> Imho this is an area where it does make sense to look at what other
> db's do, because it makes the toolwriters life so much easier if pg
> behaves like some other common db.
The defined interface to the privilege system is GRANT, REVOKE, and
"access denied" (and a couple of INFORMATION_SCHEMA views, eventually).
I don't see how other db's play into this.
> Other db's usually use a char array for priaction and don't have
> priisgrantable, but code it into priaction. Or they use a bitfield.
> This has the advantage of only producing one row per table.
That's the price I'm willing to pay for abstraction, extensibility, and
verifyability. But I'm open for better ideas.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-29 17:23:49 | Re: pg_* files are too large for empty database. |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-05-29 17:11:38 | Configuration and build clean-up |