Re: Role incompatibilities - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Role incompatibilities
Date
Msg-id 200603251836.35316.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Role incompatibilities  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Role incompatibilities
List pgsql-hackers
Am Samstag, 25. März 2006 16:10 schrieb Tom Lane:
> No, the current implementation is a compromise between exact standards
> compatibility and backwards compatibility with our historical "groups"
> behavior.  I'm not really prepared to toss the latter overboard.

My two major sticking points here are the SET ROLE command and the noinherit 
feature.  The SET ROLE command is not required by our historical group 
behavior (because we didn't have it before) and does not do what the SQL 
standard says it should do.  The noinherit feature is not required by the 
historical group behavior (because groups are yes-inherit) and is not in the 
SQL standard either.  So these two features were just mistakes as far as I 
can tell.

I'm not passing judgement on whether a command like the currently implemented 
SET ROLE command or a feature like the currently implemented noinherit 
feature is useful.  They are just not in line with either the historical 
group behavior or the SQL standard.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: [SUGGESTION] CVSync
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Where does the time go?