It would be nice to merge them, but with Unix having separate namespaces, I am not sure it is a good idea to diverge from that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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. > > I've been thinking for awhile that the ACL code would be simplified if > userids and groupids shared a numberspace, or whatever you want to call > it (ie, a given ID number cannot belong to both a user and a group). > I think that implementing that would require at least a partial merge > of pg_shadow and pg_group --- unless you want to get into implementing > cross-table unique indexes. > > If we agreed that they share a namespace as well, the merge could be > taken further. Perhaps more usefully, the GRANT/REVOKE syntax and the > display format for ACL lists could be simplified, since there'd be no > need for a syntactic marker as to whether a given name is a user or a > group. > > Not sure how many people would complain if they couldn't have a user and > a group of the same name. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- 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 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
