On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:38:35 -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu writes:
Here is extended version, has version field (N_ACL_RIGHTS*2) and
reserved
mask, as well definition is
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Wednesday 23 February 2011 22:30:04
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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
rsmogura rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
rsmogura rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
rsmogura rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us Wednesday 23 February 2011 16:19:27
rsmogura rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
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 alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com 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
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
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
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?= rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
On 02/22/2011 05:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?utf-8?q?Rados=C5=82aw_Smogura?=rsmog...@softperience.eu 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
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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
[ removing Radoslaw from the CC list, as his email is bouncing every time ]
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
It'd be more future-proof than this
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us 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
19 matches
Mail list logo
