Re: role self-revocation
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: role self-revocation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 876565.1647013615@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: role self-revocation (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: role self-revocation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:27 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: >> I agree that there would be a recorded relationship (that is, one that >> we write into the catalog and keep around until and unless it's removed >> by an admin) between creating and created roles and that's probably the >> default when CREATE ROLE is run but, unlike tables or such objects in >> the system, I don't agree that we should require this to exist at >> absolutely all times for every role (what would it be for the bootstrap >> superuser..?). At least today, that's distinct from how ownership in >> the system works. I also don't believe that this is necessarily an >> issue for Robert's use-case, as long as there are appropriate >> restrictions around who is allowed to remove or modify these >> relationships. > I agree. The bootstrap superuser clearly must be a special case in some way. I'm not convinced that that means there should be other special cases. Maybe there is a use-case for other "unowned" roles, but in exactly what way would that be different from deeming such roles to be owned by the bootstrap superuser? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: