Re: Groups vs. Roles

Roderick A. Anderson writes:

>    Looking at the TODO list I see there is an entry about adding some
> GROUPy stuff so ROLEs can be implemented.  How close will ROLEs be with
> these (object ownership) features added?  Not that I'm in hurry to have
> ROLEs but they are SQL Standard so I need to plan for them to happen.

The main missing things are group ownership of objects and nested
membership.  What has been proposed is to unify users and groups into one
concept called role.  This could make these things fall into place rather
easily.