Re: [PATCH v2] use has_privs_for_role for predefined roles - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: [PATCH v2] use has_privs_for_role for predefined roles
Date
Msg-id 6135d0b7-3af9-d6fa-cdaa-990a2fc12147@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH v2] use has_privs_for_role for predefined roles  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH v2] use has_privs_for_role for predefined roles  (Joshua Brindle <joshua.brindle@crunchydata.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2/10/22 14:28, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 04:39:11PM -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 2/9/22 13:13, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>>> I do wonder if users find the differences between predefined roles and role
>>> attributes confusing.  INHERIT doesn't govern role attributes, but it will
>>> govern predefined roles when this patch is applied.  Maybe the role
>>> attribute system should eventually be deprecated in favor of using
>>> predefined roles for everything.  Or perhaps the predefined roles should be
>>> converted to role attributes.
>> 
>> Yep, I was suggesting that the latter would have been preferable to me while
>> Robert seemed to prefer the former. Honestly I could be happy with either of
>> those solutions, but as I alluded to that is probably a discussion for the
>> next development cycle since I don't see us doing that big a change in this
>> one.
> 
> I agree.  I still think Joshua's proposed patch is a worthwhile improvement
> for v15.

+1

I am planning to get into it in detail this weekend. So far I have 
really just ensured it merges cleanly and passes make world.

Joe
-- 
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: decoupling table and index vacuum
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid erroring out when unable to remove or parse logical rewrite files to save checkpoint work