Tom Lane Wednesday 23 February 2011 22:30:04
> =?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= writes:
> > Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and reserved
> > mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any way it
> > require that rights mades bit array.
>
> You're
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:38:35 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= writes:
Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and
reserved
mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any
wa
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= writes:
>> Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and reserved
>> mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any way it
>> require that rights mades bit array.
>
> You're
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= writes:
> Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and reserved
> mask, as well definition is more general then def of PGSQL. In any way it
> require that rights mades bit array.
You're going in quite the wrong direction here. The consensus
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from RadosÅaw Smogura's message of mié feb 23 15:18:22 -0300 2011:
>> Btw, Is it possible and needed to add group byte, indicating that grantee is
>> group or user?
> There are no groups or users, only roles.
Even if there were, this is not part of the value
Excerpts from Radosław Smogura's message of mié feb 23 15:18:22 -0300 2011:
> Btw, Is it possible and needed to add group byte, indicating that grantee is
> group or user?
There are no groups or users, only roles.
--
Álvaro Herrera
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Repl
Tom Lane Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
> rsmogura writes:
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... But my question isn't about that; it's about
> >> why aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
> >> uncomfortable that client apps are looking
Tom Lane Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
> rsmogura writes:
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... But my question isn't about that; it's about
> >> why aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
> >> uncomfortable that client apps are looking
Tom Lane Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
> rsmogura writes:
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... But my question isn't about that; it's about
> >> why aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
> >> uncomfortable that client apps are looking
rsmogura writes:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... But my question isn't about that; it's about
>> why aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
>> uncomfortable that client apps are looking at it at all, because any
>> that do are bound to get
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
It'd be more future-proof than this patch, but I'm still
unconvinced
about the use-case.
Do we want to intentionally make binary format a second-class
citizen?
Well,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, unfortunately, there's an awful lot of information that can only
>> be obtained in a reasonable way by introspection of the system
>> catalogs. If you want to know whether user A can select from table B,
>> there's really no sensible way o
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... But my question isn't about that; it's about why
>> aclitem should be considered a first-class citizen. It makes me
>> uncomfortable that client apps are looking at it at all, because any
>> that do are bound to get br
[ removing Radoslaw from the CC list, as his email is bouncing every time ]
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It'd be more future-proof than this patch, but I'm still unconvinced
>>> about the use-case.
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It'd be more future-proof than this patch, but I'm still unconvinced
>> about the use-case.
> Do we want to intentionally make binary format a second-class citizen?
Well, it's not exactly a first-class citizen; compare fo
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 02/22/2011 05:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think this one has got far less use-case than the other, and I don't
>>> want to expose the internal representation of ACLITEM to the world.
>
>> The sendv for enums sends th
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 02/22/2011 05:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think this one has got far less use-case than the other, and I don't
>> want to expose the internal representation of ACLITEM to the world.
> The sendv for enums sends the label, and ISTR there are some others that
> send the
On 02/22/2011 05:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= writes:
Actaully one more POD left it's aclitem :). In Java for e.g. it is used to
obtain column priviliges, I assume some folks may want to use it too.
I think this one has got far less use-case than the other, and I
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= writes:
> Actaully one more POD left it's aclitem :). In Java for e.g. it is used to
> obtain column priviliges, I assume some folks may want to use it too.
I think this one has got far less use-case than the other, and I don't
want to expose the internal repres
Hi,
Actaully one more POD left it's aclitem :). In Java for e.g. it is used to
obtain column priviliges, I assume some folks may want to use it too.
I tested only recv :-(
Acually I don't know if idea of such format is OK, but my intention was to
send roles names, so driver don't need to ask f
20 matches
Mail list logo
