Re: type privileges and default privileges

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > A LOT of catalog bulk..? Am I missing something here?
>
> What I'm missing is what actual benefit we get from spending the extra
> space. (No, I don't believe that changing the defaults is something
> that users commonly will or should do; it's certainly not the case to
> optimize for.)

Typical database *users*? No. A DBA or SA? Certainly, and we already
provide a way to do that, in part. Supporting it for the 'default
defaults' would be nice as would support for default privileges for
schemas (rather than just objects that go *in* schemas).

Certainly a big one that people get caught by is our default of execute
to public on functions.. Most of our privileges are set up as minimal
access to others, functions are an oddity in that regard. Rather than
fight the battle of what the default *should* be for functions, we could
just give the DBA the ability to configure it for their database.

Thanks,

Stephen