On 2/9/22 13:13, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 10:54:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 7:38 PM Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote:
If we were to start all over again with this feature my vote would be to
do things differently than we have done. I would not have called them
predefined roles, and I would have used attributes of roles (e.g. make
rolsuper into a bitmap rather than a boolean) rather than role
membership to implement them. But I didn't find time to participate in
the original discussion or review/write the code, so I have little room
to complain.
Yep, fair. I kind of like the predefined role concept myself. I find
it sort of elegant, mostly because I think it scales better than a
bitmask, which can run out of bits surprisingly rapidly. But opinions
can vary, of course.
I do wonder if users find the differences between predefined roles and role
attributes confusing. INHERIT doesn't govern role attributes, but it will
govern predefined roles when this patch is applied. Maybe the role
attribute system should eventually be deprecated in favor of using
predefined roles for everything. Or perhaps the predefined roles should be
converted to role attributes.
Yep, I was suggesting that the latter would have been preferable to me
while Robert seemed to prefer the former. Honestly I could be happy with
either of those solutions, but as I alluded to that is probably a
discussion for the next development cycle since I don't see us doing
that big a change in this one.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
