* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Another issue: I like the has_role() function and in fact think it needs
> to come in multiple variants just like has_table_privilege and friends:
>
> has_role(name, name)
> has_role(name, oid)
> has_role(oid, name)
> has_role(oid, oid)
> has_role(name) -- implicitly has_role(current_user, ...)
> has_role(oid)
>
> However I'm a bit dubious about whether "has_role" isn't an invasion of
> application namespace. pg_has_role would be better, but we have the
> (mis) precedent of has_table_privilege. What do you think about calling
> it "has_role_privilege"?

I thought about that originally. It seemed a bit long to me and I felt
that having the 'privilege' of a role wasn't quite the same as having a
'role', but honestly I'm not terribly picky and on reflection a role
*is* like other objects in the catalog (I originally hadn't considered
it such), so, that's fine with me...

has_role() was another reason I was thinking about having a seperate
function for 'is_member_of_role' which didn't pollute the cache, just a
side-note.

Thanks,

Stephen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC3/4+rzgMPqB3kigRAkpmAJoD/M4JQYgh6UX9+fM19+m1BDlwDgCcCQMX
aNmyokkRykbd4TGGV2nzvN0=
=7Uj/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tom Lane wrote:

>
>However I'm a bit dubious about whether "has_role" isn't an invasion of
>application namespace. pg_has_role would be better, but we have the
>(mis) precedent of has_table_privilege. What do you think about calling
>it "has_role_privilege"?
>
>
>
>

Do we need to follow a bad precedent for the sake of consistency? If
forced to choose, in general I would prefer to sacrifice consistency.

cheers

andrew (old Emersonian)



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly