Thread: Groups vs. Roles

While playing at a new/different configuration in my brand spanking new Pg
7.4 instance :-) I noticed in the documentation that GROUPs are not in the
SQL Standard.  So I go a looking and notice that Oracle does have ROLEs
and that they are quite different in how they are used.
   Looking at the TODO list I see there is an entry about adding some
GROUPy stuff so ROLEs can be implemented.  How close will ROLEs be with
these (object ownership) features added?  Not that I'm in hurry to have
ROLEs but they are SQL Standard so I need to plan for them to happen.
(Actually I'm more interested in TABLESPACEs.  :-)


Best,
Rod
--
    "Open Source Software - You usually get more than you pay for..."
     "Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL"

Roderick A. Anderson writes:

>    Looking at the TODO list I see there is an entry about adding some
> GROUPy stuff so ROLEs can be implemented.  How close will ROLEs be with
> these (object ownership) features added?  Not that I'm in hurry to have
> ROLEs but they are SQL Standard so I need to plan for them to happen.

The main missing things are group ownership of objects and nested
membership.  What has been proposed is to unify users and groups into one
concept called role.  This could make these things fall into place rather
easily.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> The main missing things are group ownership of objects and nested
> membership.  What has been proposed is to unify users and groups into one
> concept called role.  This could make these things fall into place rather
> easily.

Thanks Peter.


Rod
--
    "Open Source Software - You usually get more than you pay for..."
     "Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL"