* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Ah, good point. Using ALTER ROLE is better. Maybe we should do ALTER > >> ROLE .. [ ADD | DROP ] CAPABILITY x. That would still require making > >> CAPABILITY a keyword, but it could be unreserved. > > > > That works for me- would we change the existing role attributes to be > > configurable this way and change everything over to using an int64 in > > the catalog? Unless I'm having trouble counting, I think that would > > actually result in the pg_authid catalog not changing in size at all > > while giving us the ability to add these capabilities and something like > > 50 others if we had cause to. > > I definitely think we should support the new syntax for the existing > attributes.
Ok. > I could go either way on whether to change the catalog > storage for the existing attributes. Some people might prefer to > avoid the backward compatibility break, and I can see that argument. There's really two issues when it comes to backwards compatibility here- the catalog representation and the syntax. My feeling is basically this- either we make a clean break to the new syntax and catalog representation, or we just use the same approach the existing attriubtes use. Long term, I think your proposed syntax and an int64 representation is better but it'll mean a lot of client code that has to change. I don't really like the idea of changing the syntax but not the representation, nor am I thrilled with the idea of supporting both syntaxes, and changing the syntax without changing the representation just doesn't make sense to me as I think we'd end up wanting to change it later, making clients have to update their code twice. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature