* Robert Haas ([email protected]) wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Stephen Frost <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Robert Haas ([email protected]) 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
