Re: fixing CREATEROLE
| От | walther@technowledgy.de |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: fixing CREATEROLE |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 935c57b1-aaef-fe3f-5f1e-b5ec36d14442@technowledgy.de обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: fixing CREATEROLE ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: fixing CREATEROLE
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
David G. Johnston: > A quick tally of the thread so far: > > No Defaults needed: David J., Mark?, Tom? > Defaults needed - attached to role directly: Robert > Defaults needed - defined within Default Privileges: Walther? s/Walther/Wolfgang > The capability itself seems orthogonal to the rest of the patch to track > these details better. I think we can "Fix CREATEROLE" without any > feature regarding optional default behaviors and would suggest this > patch be so limited and that another thread be started for discussion of > (assuming a default specifying mechanism is wanted overall) how it > should look. Let's not let a usability debate distract us from fixing a > real problem. +1 I didn't argue for whether defaults are needed in this case or not. I just said that ADP is better for defaults than role attributes are. Or the other way around: I think role attributes are not a good way to express those. Personally, I'm in the No Defaults needed camp, too. Best, Wolfgang
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: