Tom Lane writes: > 1. Do we want to someday allow groups to have groups as members? (Seems > reasonable to me.)
I agree. > 2. Are there any other differences between groups and roles? (I'm not > sure about this one.) One other difference I found is that roles can be enabled or disabled (as session state). According to the SQL standard, only one role can be active at once, but I think this is useless. According to the Oracle documentation, it seems that in Oracle many roles can be active (namely all of those granted to you), but they can be selectively enabled or disabled. This seems like a reasonable feature, but it's not terribly important. Another issue is that users and roles share a namespace. We might have to deal with that sometime, but it's not a problem as far as the information schema is concerned. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
