On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:42:17AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 10:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It's possible to support this: the group
> >> and the user will now really be the same entity, ie a role that has both
> >> its own login privileges and members.
>
> > Assuming you actually want to unify the two objects. That might well be
> > the common case, but will it always be true?
>
> As compared to what? I didn't like the notion of auto-renaming one of
> the roles, if that's what you're suggesting. That seems well outside
> pg_dump's charter.
If you want something renamed, you can handle that case by just renaming
it before you do the dump, but it would be nice if pg_dump would raise a
nice big warning when this condition exists so you're aware of it. Or
maybe even refuse to run unless you supply some command line option to
over-ride.
I don't think we should morph the two together by default either,
because that's very possibly not what the user originally intended.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461