Re: Recognizing superuser in pg_hba.conf

Greetings,

* Vik Fearing (vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 29/12/2019 23:10, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > On 29/12/2019 17:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >>>> I'm all for this (and even suggested it during the IRC conversation that
> >>>> prompted this patch). It's rife with bikeshedding, though.  My original
> >>>> proposal was to use '&' and Andrew Gierth would have used ':'.
> >>> I think this is a good proposal regardless of which character we
> >>> decide to use. My order of preference from highest-to-lowest would
> >>> probably be :*&, but maybe that's just because I'm reading this on
> >>> Sunday rather than on Tuesday.
> >> I don't have any particular objection to '&' if people prefer that.
> >
> > I wrote the patch so I got to decide. :-)  I will also volunteer to do
> > the grunt work of changing the symbol if consensus wants that, though.
> >
> > It turns out that my original patch didn't really change, all the meat
> > is in the keywords patch.  The superuser patch is to be applied on top
> > of the keywords patch.
>
> I missed a few places in the tap tests.  New keywords patch attached,
> superuser patch unchanged.

We already have a reserved namespace when it comes to roles,
specifically "pg_"..  why invent something new like this '&' prefix when
we could just declare that 'pg_superusers' is a role to which all
superusers are members?  Or something along those lines?

Thanks,

Stephen