On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Ah, good point. Using ALTER ROLE is better. Maybe we should do ALTER >> ROLE .. [ ADD | DROP ] CAPABILITY x. That would still require making >> CAPABILITY a keyword, but it could be unreserved. > > That works for me- would we change the existing role attributes to be > configurable this way and change everything over to using an int64 in > the catalog? Unless I'm having trouble counting, I think that would > actually result in the pg_authid catalog not changing in size at all > while giving us the ability to add these capabilities and something like > 50 others if we had cause to.
I definitely think we should support the new syntax for the existing attributes. I could go either way on whether to change the catalog storage for the existing attributes. Some people might prefer to avoid the backward compatibility break, and I can see that argument. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
