Re: Open items
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Open items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4549.1120018175@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Open items (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Open items
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > * Bruce Momjian (pgman@candle.pha.pa.us) wrote: >> Here are our open items. How hard are we going to be about the cutoff >> date? Do we give people the weekend to complete some items? > I'm not sure what else Tom's already working on wrt roles, Right at the moment I'm focused on cleaning up serious issues in the patch-as-committed (ie, the kind of stuff that might make Marc claim this should get reverted ;-)). I still need to re-read user.c and acl.c in some detail --- I'm concerned about the locking rules and ensuring that circular role references can't be created; and I think the permissions checking during CreateRole is probably wrong; and I really want to separate superuser from createrole properly. And information_schema is probably a few bricks shy of a load yet. After that, there's pg_dump support, documentation, and regression tests. Nothing terribly critical, but we'd require most of this stuff from anyone else submitting a patch now, so I feel on the hook to fix it having committed the patch prematurely. > ... We really should also support SET ROLE. Perhaps if I have > time I'll go through the SQL spec looking at the specific requirements > of 'Basic Role Support' and 'Extended Role Support' and come up with > what we've got, what we're missing, and then we can decide which are > features, which are bugfixes, and what we can claim in the docs. Yes, that'd be a fine thing to do. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: