| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES FOR ROLE is broken |
| Date: | 2013-06-07 16:44:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20130607164412.GE7200@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Essentially the argument for allowing this without a permissions check
> is "I'm not really doing anything to the schema, just preconfiguring the
> rights that will be attached to a new object if I later (successfully)
> create one in this schema".
Makes sense to me; if we were going to do something, I'd say a warning
would be better, but I'm alright with nothing too.
> Thoughts? If we change this, should we back-patch it? I'm inclined to
> think it's a bug (especially if the restore-ordering hazard is real)
> so we should back-patch.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2013-06-07 16:55:55 | Re: Cost limited statements RFC |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-06-07 16:43:05 | Re: Hard limit on WAL space used (because PANIC sucks) |