Re: role self-revocation
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: role self-revocation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0c095133-7dc7-7a11-b773-0318807380db@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: role self-revocation (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: role self-revocation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 07.03.22 19:18, Robert Haas wrote: >> That all said, permissions SHOULD BE strictly additive. If boss doesn't want to be a member of pg_read_all_files allowingthem to revoke themself from that role seems like it should be acceptable. If there is fear in allowing someoneto revoke (not add) themselves as a member of a different role that suggests we have a design issue in another featureof the system. Today, they neither grant nor revoke, and the self-revocation doesn't seem that important to add. > I disagree with this on principle, and I also think that's not how it > works today. On the general principle, I do not see a compelling > reason why we should have two systems for maintaining groups of users, > one of which is used for additive things and one of which is used for > subtractive things. Do we have subtractive permissions today?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: