On 16.03.22 19:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm also fairly allergic to the way that this patch has decided to assign
> multi-word names to privilege types (ie SET VALUE, ALTER SYSTEM). There
> is no existing precedent for that, and I think it's going to break
> client-side code that we don't need to break. It's not coincidental that
> this forces weird changes in rules about whitespace in the has_privilege
> functions, for example; and if you think that isn't going to cause
> problems I think you are wrong. Perhaps we could just use "SET" and
> "ALTER", or "SET" and "SYSTEM"?
I think Oracle and MS SQL Server have many multi-word privilege names.
So users are quite used to that. And if we want to add more complex
privileges, we might run out of sensible single words eventually. So I
would not exclude this approach.
