Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-24 Thread Merlin Moncure
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-24 Thread rsmogura
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-24 Thread Radosław Smogura
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread rsmogura
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread Radosław Smogura
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread Radosław Smogura
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread Radosław Smogura
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes: 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. Even if there were, this is

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-23 Thread Tom Lane
=?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

[HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-22 Thread Radosław Smogura
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
=?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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-22 Thread Robert Haas
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.

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-22 Thread Robert Haas
[ 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

Re: [HACKERS] Binary in/out for aclitem

2011-02-22 Thread Tom Lane
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