Tom Lane wrote:
>
>However I'm a bit dubious about whether "has_role" isn't an invasion of
>application namespace. pg_has_role would be better, but we have the
>(mis) precedent of has_table_privilege. What do you think about calling
>it "has_role_privilege"?
>
>
>
>
Do we need to follow a bad precedent for the sake of consistency? If
forced to choose, in general I would prefer to sacrifice consistency.
cheers
andrew (old Emersonian)
