Re: role self-revocation

> On Mar 11, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> I do think that’s reasonable … and believe I suggested it about 3 messages ago in this thread. ;)  (step #3 I think
itwas?  Or maybe 4). 

Yes, and you mentioned it to me off-list.

I'm soliciting a more concrete specification for what you are proposing.  To me, that means understanding how the SQL
specbehavior that you champion translates into specific changes.  You specified some of this in steps #1 through #5,
butI'd like a clearer indication of how many of those (#1 alone, both #1 and #2, or what?) constitute a competing idea
tothe idea of role ownership, and greater detail about how each of those steps translate into specific behavior changes
inpostgres.  Your initial five-step email seems to be claiming that #1 by itself is competitive, but to me it seems at
least#1 and #2 would be required. 

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company