On 12/23/2014 04:46 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
[snip]
I find Tom's concern about needing more
than 64 attributes to be ill-founded; I can't really see that
happening on any timescale that matters.
Hmm... most probably, not (or so I hope)... Unless we begin to add many
differerent "capabilities", like it was recently suggested.
I, for one, have at least two of them to propose, but I guess not that
many more should be needed.
I personally would prefer a 'custom' type to represent the
permissions. Internally that could very well be current bitmask, but the
external representation could be more complex (i.e. some textual
representation). That'd make it easy to make the representation wider/more
complex if needed.
Indeed, though this would imply adding a new "bitstring?" type to core
Postgres.
Do you have any further input on what this type would look like ? Any
operators that might be useful? ISTM that this would actually be the
greatest strength of a type proper (vs. "hardcoded" bit-wise operations
in core)
In any case, having the type's input/output perform the conversion
from/to text is quite equivalent to the current implementation.
Considering that this custom type would need to be in core, the
differences should be minimal.
Or am I missing something obvious?
Thanks,
/ J.L.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
