From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, 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 16:32:53 |
Message-ID: | 20070124163253.GN24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Merlin Moncure (mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >when you create them. Table rights almost always follow broad rules
> >so it only natural to integrate that with schemas somehow...but
> >admittedly it is awkward to put it into GRANT (and I've thought alot a
> >bout.
>
> oops :( what I meant to say here is that I don't think it's possible
> to this in the way that Stephen wants because it would hack up GRANT
> to much. Tom was at least half right, this proposal was not discarded
> out of hand but it was on pretty shaky ground...I was one of the big
> supporters of extending grant this way in the original discussion but
> I think it might be the wrong approach.
err, what proposal wasn't touching the GRANT syntax at all but rather
adding some options to ALTER SCHEMA which I didn't think was all that
bad (and wasn't commented on except to point out that I needed to handle
different object types seperately). The current opposition, aiui, is
against having a 'default owner' for new objects in a schema and not the
default ACLs per schema.
I don't think it makes sense to have this syntax be part of the GRANT
syntax since it's really about a schema...
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | org | 2007-01-24 16:34:05 | Re: STOP all user access except for admin for a few minutes? |
Previous Message | Sorin Schwimmer | 2007-01-24 16:26:43 | New feature proposal |