> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 01 August 2005 14:14 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] RFC: roles > > > How ugly! The icon can signal it.
Yes, that is preferable, however in most places (ie. combo boxes) the icons got lost when pgAdmin 2 was rewritten as pgAdmin 3. > Still questions open: > Hierarchical or flat view? Separate grouping for login/nologin roles, > roles with/without childs? I think a flat view, as it could get very messy with 1 role being a member of more than one other. > Actually, I don't find it good practice to use a role as > group and login > at the same time. I'd be inclined to name all roles with > login without > childs a user, the rest role/group, grouping them accordingly. No, I agree it's bad practice, but it might happen (I assume - haven't tried it though) as far as I can see from the docs. In fact, they say: "A role having LOGIN privilege can be thought of as a user", so I think we should not count hild roles, and just rely on LOGIN. Of course, this seems like a good candidate for a guru hint. /D ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
