Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050629002304.GT24207@ns.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > * Bruno Wolff III (bruno@wolff.to) wrote: > >> Creating objects in particular schemas or databases is not something that > >> all roles may be able to do. > > > Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what I think about this issue. > > We have a precedent, which is that RENAME checks for create rights. Ah, ok. Precedent is good. > If you want to lean on the argument that this is just a shortcut for > dropping the object and then recreating it somewhere else, then you > need (a) the right to drop the object --- which is inherent in being > the old owner, and (b) the right to create the new object, which means > that (b1) you can become the role you wish to have owning the object, > and (b2) *as that role* you would have the rights needed to create the > object. > > Stephen's original analysis covers (a) and (b1) but not (b2). With (b2) > I'd agree that it's just a useful shortcut. Right. Ok, I'll develop a patch which covers (a), (b1) and (b2). I'll also go through all of the superuser() calls in src/backend/commands/ and check for other places we may need *_ownercheck calls. I expect to have the patch done either tonight or tommorow. Thanks, Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: