Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, yes, but that's no longer the issue. I guess my thought was that
> if we could get the common id space change in before 8.0 then group
> ownership could possibly be introduced in 8.1 w/o having to do a
> dump/restore.
No chance whatever during RC
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ah, alright, sounds good to me. I'll look into making them share a
> > common unique identifier space, that shouldn't be too difficult. Of
> > course, that'll require a dump/restore, I expect.. I don't suppose
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, alright, sounds good to me. I'll look into making them share a
> common unique identifier space, that shouldn't be too difficult. Of
> course, that'll require a dump/restore, I expect.. I don't suppose that
> could possibly happen before 8.0, eh? :
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Due to the fact that group system id's and user system id's can
> > overlap, pg_class will need to change in order to accomedate group
> > ownership. The things I've thought of so far, in order of preferenc
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Due to the fact that group system id's and user system id's can
> overlap, pg_class will need to change in order to accomedate group
> ownership. The things I've thought of so far, in order of preference:
I thought that the agreed-on direction for
Greetings,
Due to the fact that group system id's and user system id's can
overlap, pg_class will need to change in order to accomedate group
ownership. The things I've thought of so far, in order of preference:
a) Add a boolean field 'relgroup_owned' which is 'false' when relowner
