Re: user "PUBLIC" not in All_USERS

"Michel Cadot" <micadot{at}altern{dot}org> a écrit dans le message de news:40fad762$0$3615$626a14ce_at_news.free.fr...
>
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> a écrit dans le message de
> news:1090179381.633491_at_yasure...
> > Michel Cadot wrote:
> > > "Praveen" <nospam_at_nospam.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > > news:cd7150$gfa$1_at_news1brm.Central.Sun.COM...
> > >
> > >>Hi..All,
> > >>
> > >> I have a quick question. Why am I not able to see the user "PUBLIC"
> > >>in ALL_USERS table.
> > >>
> > >>Regards,
> > >>
> > >>P
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > PUBLIC is neither a user nor a role, it's a user group.
> > > It has been defined as it in Oracle version 6.
> > > It's the only user group but version 6 doc seemed to
> > > understand that someday there will be other groups
> > > (something like all users belong to a group, PUBLIC by default).
> > > Then roles come in version 7 and user group idea disappeared,
> > > just PUBLIC rested.
> > > From which all the inconsistencies Pete showed trying to fit
> > > PUBLIC in a role role.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards
> > > Michel Cadot
> >
> > Thanks. This post didn't show up here until today.
> >
> > This reminds me very much as being similar to the fact that everyone is
> > a member of the DEFAULT profile and works in the LIVE workspace.
> >
> > Daniel Morgan
> >
>
> ...and belongs to DEFAULT_CONSUMER_GROUP resource consumer group.
>
> --
> Regards
> Michel Cadot
>

I think user group should be useful:

• group synonyms like public ones but limited to users in the user group
• group privileges like role but enabled in stored procedures... for all users in the group
• and surely many other things i don't think about for the moment

--
Regards
Michel Cadot