Re: Open items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Open items
Date
Msg-id 4549.1120018175@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Open items  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Open items
List pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Bruce Momjian (pgman@candle.pha.pa.us) wrote:
>> Here are our open items.  How hard are we going to be about the cutoff
>> date?  Do we give people the weekend to complete some items?

> I'm not sure what else Tom's already working on wrt roles,

Right at the moment I'm focused on cleaning up serious issues in the
patch-as-committed (ie, the kind of stuff that might make Marc claim
this should get reverted ;-)).  I still need to re-read user.c and
acl.c in some detail --- I'm concerned about the locking rules and
ensuring that circular role references can't be created; and I think
the permissions checking during CreateRole is probably wrong; and
I really want to separate superuser from createrole properly.  And
information_schema is probably a few bricks shy of a load yet.  After
that, there's pg_dump support, documentation, and regression tests.
Nothing terribly critical, but we'd require most of this stuff from
anyone else submitting a patch now, so I feel on the hook to fix it
having committed the patch prematurely.

> ... We really should also support SET ROLE.  Perhaps if I have
> time I'll go through the SQL spec looking at the specific requirements
> of 'Basic Role Support' and 'Extended Role Support' and come up with
> what we've got, what we're missing, and then we can decide which are
> features, which are bugfixes, and what we can claim in the docs.

Yes, that'd be a fine thing to do.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: Feature request from irc...
Next
From: "Denis Lussier"
Date:
Subject: Re: Feature request from irc...