Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 24160.1086187051@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>) |
Ответы |
Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: >> The problem here is not with pg_dump; the problem is that dropping >> privileges doesn't cascade to dropping objects that are dependent on >> those privileges. AFAICS the SQL spec requires us to be able to do >> the latter. > The spec really requires that?? So basically we have RESTRICT and > CASCADE on REVOKE? Well, the spec doesn't have create permissions per se, but they do have a "usage" right on domains, and they specify that revoking that results in dropping objects: 7) For every abandoned domain descriptor DO, let S1.DN be the <domain name> of DO. The following <dropdomain statement> is effectively executed without further Access Rule checking: DROP DOMAIN S1.DN CASCADE Similarly, revoking access to tables etc. results in physical changes to views that reference those tables. So I think the idea is pretty clear. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: