Re: proposal: regrole type?
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-12-26T17:34:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- regrole.patch (application/octet-stream) patch
2012/12/26 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>: > 2012/12/25 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: >>> * We can reduce to half lot of functions \df has_* (84 functions) >> >> Not without breaking existing queries. A function taking regrole might >> look like it substitutes for one taking a text-string user name as long >> as you only pass literal constants to it, but as soon as you pass >> non-constants you'll find out different. (Unless your plan is to also >> create an implicit cast from text to regrole, which strikes me as a >> seriously bad idea.) I was little bit surprised so regproc, regprocedure is not used on SQL level in our builtin functions - and I use both types often in our custom queries. So it can be similar with regrole and regaclrole - it can be addressed for more orthogonal work with roles I am sending patch, but I will not assign to commitfest now. Regards Pavel