On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 7:38 PM Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > If we were to start all over again with this feature my vote would be to > do things differently than we have done. I would not have called them > predefined roles, and I would have used attributes of roles (e.g. make > rolsuper into a bitmap rather than a boolean) rather than role > membership to implement them. But I didn't find time to participate in > the original discussion or review/write the code, so I have little room > to complain.
Yep, fair. I kind of like the predefined role concept myself. I find it sort of elegant, mostly because I think it scales better than a bitmask, which can run out of bits surprisingly rapidly. But opinions can vary, of course. > However since we did call these things predefined roles, and used role > membership to implement them, I think they ought to behave both > self-consistently as a group, and like other real roles. > > That is what this patch does unless I am missing something. Yes, I see that. > I guess an alternative is to discuss a "proper fix", but it seems to me > that would be a version 16 thing given how late we are in this > development cycle and how invasive it is likely to be. And doing nothing > for pg15 is not a very satisfying proposition :-/ True. The fact that we don't have consistency among existing predefined roles is IMHO the best argument for this patch. That surely can't be right. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
