Re: REASSIGN OWNED lacks support for FDWs
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: REASSIGN OWNED lacks support for FDWs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F45FAC7.7020503@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: REASSIGN OWNED lacks support for FDWs (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
(2012/02/23 5:32), Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> My only concern on the patch is >> >> +static void >> +AlterForeignServerOwner_internal(Relation rel, HeapTuple tup, Oid >> newOwnerId) >> +{ >> + Form_pg_foreign_server form; >> >> - srvId = HeapTupleGetOid(tup); >> form = (Form_pg_foreign_server) GETSTRUCT(tup); >> >> if (form->srvowner != newOwnerId) >> @@ -366,10 +388,15 @@ AlterForeignServerOwner(const char *name, Oid >> newOwnerId) >> /* Superusers can always do it */ >> if (!superuser()) >> { >> >> I wonder if superusers can always do it. For example, is it OK for >> superusers to change the ownership of a foreign server owned by old_role >> to new_role that doesn't have USAGE privilege on its foreign data wrapper. > > Well, permission checking are just what they were before the patch. I > did not change them here. I didn't participate in the discussions that > led to the current behavior, but as far as I know the guiding principle > here is that superusers always can do whatever they please. Maybe what > you point out is a bug in the behavior (both before and after my patch), > but if so, please raise it separately. OK. Thanks. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: