On 02/01/2020 20:52, Stephen Frost wrote: > 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?
This is an argument against the superusers patch, but surely you are not suggesting we add a pg_all role that contains all users? And what about the keywords that aren't for users? -- Vik Fearing
