On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Josh Berkus<j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > The main reason is existing practice.
I haven't followed the entire conversation so i'm not sure who I'm going to be disagreeing with or agreeing with here. But I wanted to mention that existing practice may not be a very useful place to start here. Whatever mechanism we invent is going to change the calculus of people deciding how to set up their schemas and roles since they'll want to arrange things to take advantage of this new mechanism. In particular, one early question was whether to use wildcard patterns or schema names. People were saying wildcard patterns would be more flexible because people don't always set up their objects in different schemas. But if we had a mechanism someone wanted to use which depended on schemas they would be far more likely to choose to set up schemas for objects which belong in different security classes. -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
