| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Default permissisons from schemas |
| Date: | 2007-01-24 03:29:18 |
| Message-ID: | 1FF2D97D-7CED-41E7-8996-CEA2CD4DDA95@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 23, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Whoa. You are going to allow people to create objects owned by
>> someone
>> else? I don't think so ... most Unix systems have forbidden object
>> give-away for years, for very good reasons.
>
> Hmm. While I agree with the sentiment, Unix does provide for setgid
> such that objects inherit a specific group on creation. Using
> roles we
> don't get that distinction so I don't think comparing it to Unix is a
> slam-dunk. There do need to be limitations here though, certainly. A
> couple options, in order of my preference:
Is there a use-case for per-schema default ownership? I can't really
think of one...
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Bartlett | 2007-01-24 03:54:14 | Re: Updateable cursors |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-01-24 03:01:41 | Re: [GENERAL] Autovacuum Improvements |