Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
>
> > We have roles?
>
> Until two days ago I was under the impression that roles were schema
> objects, but apparently this is not the case, and it seems that roles are
> really just an extension of our group concept.
Yep. We have already beefed up group handling quite a bit in the past
few releases, so if we can take it the extra steps needed, we can just
make ROLE and GROUP synonymous and be done with it.
I think the one missing item mentioned was for group ownership of an
object. However, if we give group _permission_ to the object, I am not
sure why ownership is an issue. Are there certain permission we can't
give to the group?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073