| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
| Date: | 2015-03-02 18:04:03 |
| Message-ID: | 6722.1425319443@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> That being so, I would consider the idea that the NO bit is a separate
> word rather than run together with the actual privilege name. And given
> that CREATE has all the options default to "NO", there is no need to
> have these options at all in CREATE, is there?
FWIW, I disagree with that, mainly because I don't think we should cast in
stone the assumption that NO will always be the default for everything we
might invent in the future. Also, the precedent of the existing options
will lead people to expect that they can explicitly say NO-whatever.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-03-02 18:05:55 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-03-02 18:02:26 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |