Re: Role Self-Administration

> On Oct 6, 2021, at 10:20 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> Consistency is not having dangling pointers around to things which no
> longer exist- FK reference kind of things.  Object management is about
> actual *removal* of full blown objects like roles, tables, etc.  DROP
> TABLE ... CASCADE doesn't drop tables which haven an FK dependency on
> the dropped table, the FK is just removed.

Right, but DROP SCHEMA ... CASCADE does remove the tables within, no?  I would see alice being a member of role bob as
beinganalogous to the foreign key example, and charlie being owned by bob as being more like the table within a schema. 

I'm fine with using a different syntax for this if what i'm proposing violates the spec.  I'm just trying to wrap my
headaround how to interpret the spec (of which i have no copy, mind you.)  I'm trying to distinguish between statements
likeX SHALL DO Y and X SHALL DO NOTHING BUT Y.  I don't know if the spec contains a concept of roles owning other
roles,and if not, does it forbid that concept?  I should think that if that concept is a postgres extension not present
inthe spec, then we can make it do anything we want. 

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company