On 30/04/15 12:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I think that if you commit this the way you have it today, everybody
will go, oh, look, Stephen committed something, but it looks
complicated, I won't pay attention.
Yeah, that sucks.
Finally, you've got the idea of making pg_ a reserved prefix for
roles, adding some predefined roles, and giving them some predefined
privileges. That should be yet another patch.
On this part I have a bit of a problem -- the prefix is not really
reserved, is it. I mean, evidently it's still possible to create roles
with the pg_ prefix ... otherwise, how come the new lines to
system_views.sql that create the "predefined" roles work in the first
place? I think if we're going to reserve role names, we should reserve
them for real: CREATE ROLE should flat out reject creation of such
roles, and the default ones should be created during bootstrap.
IMO anyway.
What if I had a company with several subsidiaries using the same
database, and want to prefix roles and other things with the
subsidiary's initials? (I am not saying this would be a good
architecture!!!)
For example if one subsidiary was called 'Perfect Gentleman', so I would
want roles prefixed by 'pg_' and would be annoyed if I couldn't!
Cheers,
Gavin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
