Hi Nickolay,

>> Perhaps this approach would be preferable to introducing a
>> totally non-standard object (groups) into the databse?

> Firebird is non standard-compliant regarding the matter.
> Standard roles == groups.

I take back some of the nasty things I have been thinking about
the SQL standards committee. :-)

> Actually Firebird roles may be more or less trivially fixed
> to support standards-compliant behavior

Except that, given the way it has been implemented in the past,
this may have the undesirable effect of suddenly giving users
on existing applications always on access to things they were
not supposed to have unless logged on with a specific role.

It is yet another one of those; "Do we want compliance or
backwards compatibility?" questions.

In this particular instance I would like compliance, mainly
because I find the IB/FB roles so painful to use (and because
I know my existing applications wont really be effected by
such a change :-).


Thanks for clarifying the situation.

--
Geoff Worboys
Telesis Computing