| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
| Date: | 2007-05-04 22:02:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20070504220233.GA27936@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Based on the discussion so far, it seems to me that the sane course of
action is to continue to register the grantor, because the standard
mandates that it should be there; but ignore the parts where we revoke
selectively, because that's a stupid thing to do. So we do deviate, if
slightly.
So we will have pg_dumpall do nothing special if the grantor has gone
away since granting the privilege. That is, exactly the patch that was
submitted, no new code needs to be written. (Maybe a mention in the
"compatibility" section of REVOKE is warranted, though I'm not sure).
Does anyone object to this course of action?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-05-04 22:07:02 | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-04 22:00:38 | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-05-04 22:07:02 | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-04 22:00:38 | Re: Removing pg_auth_members.grantor (was Grantor name gets lost when grantor role dropped) |