Greetings, * Vik Fearing (vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 29/12/2019 23:10, Vik Fearing wrote: > > On 29/12/2019 17:31, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Vik Fearing <vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> I'm all for this (and even suggested it during the IRC conversation that > >>>> prompted this patch). It's rife with bikeshedding, though. My original > >>>> proposal was to use '&' and Andrew Gierth would have used ':'. > >>> I think this is a good proposal regardless of which character we > >>> decide to use. My order of preference from highest-to-lowest would > >>> probably be :*&, but maybe that's just because I'm reading this on > >>> Sunday rather than on Tuesday. > >> I don't have any particular objection to '&' if people prefer that. > > > > I wrote the patch so I got to decide. :-) I will also volunteer to do > > the grunt work of changing the symbol if consensus wants that, though. > > > > It turns out that my original patch didn't really change, all the meat > > is in the keywords patch. The superuser patch is to be applied on top > > of the keywords patch. > > I missed a few places in the tap tests. New keywords patch attached, > superuser patch unchanged.
We already have a reserved namespace when it comes to roles, specifically "pg_".. why invent something new like this '&' prefix when we could just declare that 'pg_superusers' is a role to which all superusers are members? Or something along those lines? Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
