Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:28:29 -0800
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Joshua Brindle <joshua.brindle@crunchydata.com>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>,
	Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] use has_privs_for_role for predefined roles
Message-ID: <20220210192829.GB1684442@nathanxps13>
References: <80af9ba7-ec24-9134-8fd9-00bf13f5c494@joeconway.com>
 <CA+TgmoY7Hy2iiJ6SKPKjG9w4D+KiPYtZoXB=PpX2oQkwcK5rUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <18eab9b6-1f77-72b2-83d3-1856c17f3fcb@joeconway.com>
 <CA+Tgmoa-czkhuLM6ZGKsTTxM56k4Ba2=_2Ai5Uo-u+PSkRVNww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGB+Vh5h29oiq=paMPoz_f8rAOhF0AFkAup6Wo2+td=JJ+8Brw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaGoWYcPX-T0uAheAfrwcvnLUw8N2FsC7TvqQku-qvJUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0b1b6cfb-d752-28f6-7ccb-993998be0189@joeconway.com>
 <CA+TgmoYhx2KtBKX6Na-050RS5x5O_=arTzA96VmJd7=6hGBtag@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220209181333.GD1627503@nathanxps13>
 <e2955bbc-f7f4-cb80-d35a-ff754898bab0@joeconway.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e2955bbc-f7f4-cb80-d35a-ff754898bab0@joeconway.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220210192829.GB1684442%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 04:39:11PM -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 2/9/22 13:13, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I do wonder if users find the differences between predefined roles and role
>> attributes confusing.  INHERIT doesn't govern role attributes, but it will
>> govern predefined roles when this patch is applied.  Maybe the role
>> attribute system should eventually be deprecated in favor of using
>> predefined roles for everything.  Or perhaps the predefined roles should be
>> converted to role attributes.
> 
> Yep, I was suggesting that the latter would have been preferable to me while
> Robert seemed to prefer the former. Honestly I could be happy with either of
> those solutions, but as I alluded to that is probably a discussion for the
> next development cycle since I don't see us doing that big a change in this
> one.

I agree.  I still think Joshua's proposed patch is a worthwhile improvement
for v15.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com