Re: DROP TABLE can be issued by schema owner as well as table owner

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Derrick Rice <derrick(dot)rice(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > According to
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/sql-droptable.html
> >
> > "DROP TABLE removes tables from the database. Only its owner can drop a
> > table."
> >
> > In fact, the schema owner can drop the table, which is clearly stated here:
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/sql-dropschema.html
> >
> > "A schema can only be dropped by its owner or a superuser. Note that the
> > owner can drop the schema (and thereby all contained objects) even if he
> > does not own some of the objects within the schema."
>
> The sentence really should be written a way that indicates that we're
> talking about who can execute this particular command, rather than who
> can manage to accomplish the removal of the object. I don't think
> it's practical to document the latter. We'd have to include:
>
> - the owner of the table
> - the superuser
> - the schema owner, since they could drop the entire schema
> - the database owner, since they could drop the entire database
> - the system administrator, since they could delete the entire data
> directory, or any part of it
> - the person with physical control of the machine, since they could
> remove and wipe the disk
> - any world leader with access to nuclear weapons, since they could...
> well, you get the idea
>
> Even if we excluded the last few, it would be quite wordy to
> recapitulate this for every object type. I suggest we steal the
> phraseology from "DROP FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER", which reads:
>
> To execute this command, the current user must be the owner of the
> foreign-data wrapper.
>
> The phrase "to execute this command" makes the scope of what follows
> clear: it's just who can run this command, NOT who might be able by
> indirect means to get rid of the object. To cover all bases, we could
> add ", or the superuser" to the end of the sentence.

I applied the following documentation patch to clarify this issue, and
used generic wording "user with the proper permissions".

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +