Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne writes: > > > We have roles? > > Until two days ago I was under the impression that roles were schema > objects, but apparently this is not the case, and it seems that roles are > really just an extension of our group concept.
Yep. We have already beefed up group handling quite a bit in the past few releases, so if we can take it the extra steps needed, we can just make ROLE and GROUP synonymous and be done with it. I think the one missing item mentioned was for group ownership of an object. However, if we give group _permission_ to the object, I am not sure why ownership is an issue. Are there certain permission we can't give to the group? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
