| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: [Patch Review] TRUNCATE Permission |
| Date: | 2008-09-02 01:33:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1872.1220319234@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Ryan Bradetich" <rbradetich(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ something about "your patch" ]
> This is Robert Haas's patch for the September 2008 commit-fest.
> I am just offering my review.
Sorry about that, I got confused by the reply-to-a-reply.
> Does my first suggestion still make sense for removing the TRUNCATE in
> pg_class_aclmask() when pg_Authid.rolcatupdate is not set?
Probably. AFAICS it should be treated exactly like ACL_DELETE, so
anyplace that acl-whacking code is doing something for ACL_DELETE and
the patch doesn't add in ACL_TRUNCATE, I'd be suspicious ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2008-09-02 02:45:06 | Re: [PATCH] allow has_table_privilege(..., 'usage') on sequences |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-09-02 01:17:06 | [gsmith@gregsmith.com: Re: [patch] GUC source file and line number] |