| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "James B(dot) Byrne" <byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Adrian Klaver" <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Need help extripating plpgsql |
| Date: | 2013-02-22 08:04:28 |
| Message-ID: | 18383.1361520268@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"James B. Byrne" <byrnejb(at)harte-lyne(dot)ca> writes:
> If all the elements contained in the standard templates had their
> ownerships changed to that of the owner of the new database then my
> problem would never have arisen. I do not understand why this is not
> the case. Is there a reason why this is so?
I don't see why you expect that. Should a non-superuser database owner
have the ability to redefine, say, sum(int4)? You might as well just
give him superuser privileges.
In PG's security model, ownership of a database does *not* automatically
confer any privileges with respect to the contained objects. It doesn't
really give much at all except the ability to drop or rename the
database as a whole.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rafael Martinez | 2013-02-22 09:41:10 | PostgreSQL binaries under /usr/lib, why? |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2013-02-22 04:03:33 | Re: confirming security. |