Re: Proposal for new pgsqlODBC feature - hiding tables inaccessible to the current user

[Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>]

Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> The use-case I was thinking of was SQL builder tools that allow you to
> choose table names from the SQLTables list - even if you don't want to
> perform a SELECT, you may still want to be able to include the table in
> your query for an INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE.
> 
> Where does that leave the status of the patch? Is there any way at all
> of getting the feature included with a GUI tickbox to select/deselect
> it, or would the patch be rejected regardless?
> 

Hi Mark,

I don't object to the feature; just to making it the default because of
the potential to break apps. I can appreciate where Hiroshi is coming
from - we are getting too many options - but I don't necessarily agree
that the answer is to squeeze all the new ones into a set of bit flags
though, except for *really* obscure or expert options. What I think
should happen instead is a concerted effort to move some of the older
options that aren't really used any more into the bit flags to simplify
the dialogues. Obviously they would also retain their existing connect
string options.

Ones that spring to mind include the protocol versions which is rarely,
if ever needed these days, KSQO, Recognise Unique Indexes, Disallow
premature...


Regards, Dave