On 2/10/17 12:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
They're misleading by having an arbitrary subset of the role attributes and implying that the role relationships are simpler than they actually are. Frankly, they're also not being consistently maintained based on any proper policy, which I find quite objectionable.
+1
Of course, we could fix these issues- we could add the grantor to the pg_groups view, and perhaps even change it to be an acyclic directed graph structure, and we could add the role attributes to pg_user and pg_shadow which are missing, but at that point all we're really doing, it seems to me, is providing synonyms for the existing canonical views, and that hardly seems useful.
Well, there's always the issue of breaking peoples existing code, which will probably remain an issue until we become more "in your face" with users about stuff we're trying to deprecate.
My vote would be to either kill the views or explicitly deprecate them and move them to contrib.
-- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
