Re: dropping a user causes pain (#2)
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: dropping a user causes pain (#2) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F39387E.2030608@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: dropping a user causes pain (#2) (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
ISTM there's a difference between an object without an (exisiting) owner and an object whose owner doesn't currently have the privileges required to create it, although maybe there's a good case for a script to detect the latter as a part of a good administrator's arsenal of tricks in keeping things sane and clean. andrew Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Tom Lane writes: > > > >>The advantage here is that the sysid assigned to the user would remain >>present in pg_shadow and couldn't accidentally be assigned to a new >>user. This would prevent the problem of new users "inheriting" >>permissions and even object ownership from deleted users due to chance >>coincidence of sysid. >> >> > >But how does one actually get rid of the privileges? > >Btw., the problem is going to get worse if we get nested roles, roles with >grant options, and possibly other parts of the enhanced privilege >facilities. For example, if you remove a user from a role/group, you >would need to search the entire database cluster for any privileges >granted through that group that this user had used to create some kind of >permanent state. I'm not sure if we want to cover all of these cases with >various "this link no longer exists" flags, especially since later on the >link could be reestablished. > > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: