Dave Page wrote:
-----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.
So we have:
- Groups/Roles and Users as object collection
- Users will contain all roles with LOGIN
- Groups/Roles the rest
- Both will use common dlgRole dialog, with different checkbox settings
for LOGIN
- NOLOGIN roles (in Groups/Roles) have the group icon
- LOGIN roles without kids (pure users) have user icon
- LOGIN roles with kids ('role-user') have group icon
- Guru hint "bad practice" if a LOGIN role is used as role parent
Agreed?
Regards,
Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
