On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:20:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@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 a first-class citizen; compare for instance
> the
> amount of verbiage in the docs about text I/O formats versus the
> amount
> about binary formats. 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 are bound to get broken in the future, even assuming that
> they
> get the right answers today. I wonder how many such clients are up
> to
> speed for per-column privileges and non-constant default privileges
> for
> instance. And sepgsql is going to cut them off at the knees.
>
> regards, tom lane
Technically, at eye glance, I didn't seen in sepgsql modifications to acl.h. So, I think, aclitem will be unaffected.
Inany way sepgsql needs some way to present access rights to administrator it may use own model, or aclitem, too.
JDBC, and other applications may use aclitem to get just information about who has what access. I think psql does this
insame manner as JDBC, by calling select from pg_class. But if user, through psql, JDBC or other driver. will invoke
"select* from pg_class" it will fail with "no binary output", because it is plain user query.
Currently proposed binary output has space for 4 more privs. Am I right?
One thing I realized, I do not pass flag if grant target is group or user.
Regards,Radek