Re: Default privileges for new databases (was Re: Can't
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Default privileges for new databases (was Re: Can't |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18839.1030421298@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Default privileges for new databases (was Re: Can't (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Default privileges for new databases (was Re: Can't
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > So template1 is writable (yuck) only so databases created from template1 > are writeable to world by default. Is that accurate? Yup. I had a probably-harebrained idea about this: the writeability of public is only a serious issue when it is the default creation-target schema. It's likely that you'd say "create table foo" without reflecting about the fact that you're connected to template1; much less likely that you'd say "create table public.foo". So, what if the default per-database GUC settings for template1 include setting the search_path to empty? That would preclude accidental table creation in template1's public schema. As long as CREATE DATABASE doesn't copy the per-database GUC settings of the template database, copied databases wouldn't be similarly crippled. Now I'm not entirely convinced that CREATE DATABASE shouldn't copy the per-database GUC settings of the template. But at the moment it doesn't, and if we're willing to institutionalize that behavior then it'd provide a way out. Or is that too weird? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: