| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
| Date: | 2007-05-04 22:00:38 |
| Message-ID: | 11239.1178316038@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> If you're saying we don't currently warn if a revoke leaves the
> priviledges in-tact for the right and target, I'm not sure you can
> currently get in a state where it'd be possible to run into that.
I'm thinking of the case that comes up periodically where newbies think
that revoking a right from a particular user overrides a grant to PUBLIC
of the same right.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-05-04 22:02:33 | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-05-04 21:54:50 | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-05-04 22:02:33 | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-05-04 21:54:50 | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |