* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > There is absolutely NOT consensus on > this design or anything close to it.
There is no doubt that consensus on the desirability and design needs to be reached before we can even consider committing it. I suspect Adam posted it simply because he had identified issues himself and wanted to make others aware that things had been fixed. That said, it sounds like the primary concern has been if we want this feature at all and there hasn't been much discussion of the design itself. Comments about the technical design would be great. I appreciate your thoughts about using a PGC_SUSER GUC, but I don't feel like it really works as it's all-or-nothing and doesn't provide read-vs-write, unless we extend it out to be multiple GUCs and then there is still the question about per-role access.. I'm not sure that I see a way to allow the per-role granularity without having a top-level catalog object on which the GRANT can be executed and ACL information stored. Perhaps it's unfortunate that we don't have a more generic way to address that but I'm not sure I really see another catalog table as a big problem.. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature