| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: v16 roles, SET FALSE, INHERIT FALSE, ADMIN FALSE |
| Date: | 2024-07-08 22:08:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1221566.1720476530@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:16 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> On 08.07.2024 22:22, Christophe Pettus wrote:
>>>> This is more curiosity than anything else. In the v16 role system, is
>>>> there actually any reason to grant membership in a role to a different
>>>> role, but with SET FALSE, INHERIT FALSE, and ADMIN FALSE? Does the role
>>>> granted membership gain any ability it didn't have before in that case?
>>> Looks like there is one ability.
>>> Authentication in pg_hba.conf "USER" field via +role syntax.
>> Hmm, if that check doesn't require INHERIT TRUE I'd say it's
>> a bug.
> The code doesn't support that claim.
That doesn't make it not a bug. Robert, what do you think? If this
is correct behavior, why is it correct?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joseph Hammerman | 2024-07-08 22:26:23 | SQL: Chaining versus Pipelining |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-07-08 21:59:51 | Re: v16 roles, SET FALSE, INHERIT FALSE, ADMIN FALSE |