On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 07:42:21PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 03:23:07PM -0800, Swaha Miller wrote:
> > A prominent use case for grouping functions into modules would
> > be access control on the group as a whole, with one command
> > for an entire module instead of many individual functions. One reason
> > for such a grouping is to set ACLs. Users migrating their database from
> > commercial databases to PostgreSQL wanting to set ACLs on
> > thousands or hundreds of thousands of functions would benefit from
> > a grouping concept like modules.
> >
> > If users use schemas to group functions, then they have to break up
> > functions that may have all been in one namespace into a bunch of new
> > schemas. So we'd like to have a different grouping mechanism that can
> > group functions within a schema. So we're looking at a new construct like
> > modules that can serve that purpose without introducing sub-schemas.
>
> I was working on a talk about microservices today and decided to create
> two schemas --- a public one that has USAGE permission for other services
> with views and SECURITY DEFINER functions that referenced a private
> schema that can only be accessed by the owning service. Is that a usage
> pattern that requires modules since it already works with schemas and
> just uses schema permissions to designate public/private schema
> interfaces.
Attached is an example.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
