Re: Need help extripating plpgsql

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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.