Re: role self-revocation
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: role self-revocation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobDxUQ4ugRyu9Ff_Ch3VWWH0_tko5m6ypFD8w7TPtFQXA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: role self-revocation (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: role self-revocation
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Note that either case would also involve making entries in pg_shdepend; > although for the case of roles owned by/granted to the bootstrap > superuser, we could omit those on the usual grounds that we don't need > to record dependencies on pinned objects. That makes sense to me, but it still doesn't solve the problem of agreeing on role ownership vs. WITH ADMIN OPTION vs. something else. I find it ironic (and frustrating) that Mark implemented what I think is basically what you're arguing for, it got stuck because Stephen didn't like it, we then said OK so let's try to find out what Stephen would like, only to have you show up and say that it's right the way he already had it. I'm not saying that you're wrong, or for that matter that he's wrong. I'm just saying that if both of you are absolutely bent on having it the way you want it, either one of you is going to be sad, or we're not going to make any progress. Never mind the fact that neither of you seem interested in even giving a hearing to my preferred way of doing it. :-( -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: