Re: has_privs_of_role vs. is_member_of_role, redux
От | Wolfgang Walther |
---|---|
Тема | Re: has_privs_of_role vs. is_member_of_role, redux |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16d92701-70bb-1a00-f9c4-2ce99328944a@technowledgy.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: has_privs_of_role vs. is_member_of_role, redux (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas: >> I think to change the owner of an object from role A to role B, you just >> need a different "privilege" on that role B to "use" the role that way, >> which is distinct from INHERIT or SET ROLE "privileges". > > It's not distinct, though, because if you can transfer ownership of a > table to another user, you can use that ability to gain the privileges > of that user. Right, but the inverse is not neccessarily true, so you could have SET ROLE privileges, but not "USAGE" - and then couldn't change the owner of an object to this role. USAGE is not a good term, because it implies "least amount of privileges", but in this case it's quite the opposite. In any case, adding a grant option for SET ROLE, while keeping the required privileges for a transfer of ownership at the minimum (membership only), doesn't really make sense. I guess both threads should be discussed together? Best Wolfgang
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: