| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier |
| Date: | 2009-06-28 22:10:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1246227023.23359.79.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:03 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * David Fetter (david(at)fetter(dot)org) wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not
> > > work prospectively. We have no way ATM to store permissions for an
> > > object that does not currently exist.
> >
> > There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions
> > changes. Are we restarting them here?
>
> Having default permissions for new objects (something a couple of us are
> working towards) would help with this situation some. I don't think the
> ground Jeff's proposal would cover is entirely covered by just having
> default permissions though.
>
One case that it would not cover is creating new roles that you would
like to have access to existing objects. Defaults may be useful
independently, though, so I think the proposals are overlapping, but
generally different.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-06-28 22:28:32 | Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-06-28 22:07:43 | Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier |