Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobUcuRsYDzHJ3VMmgE6V6dZi2pujY4p269EpJT7zYrS2w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 3:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Maybe. What I was pointing out is that this is SQL-standard syntax > and there are SQL-standard semantics that it ought to be implementing. > Probably those semantics match what you describe here, but we ought > to dive into the spec and make sure before we spend a lot of effort. > It's not quite clear to me whether the spec defines any particular > unique key (identity) for the set of role authorizations. I sort of thought http://postgr.es/m/3981966.1646429663@sss.pgh.pa.us constituted a completed investigation of this sort. No? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: