| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: superuser() shortcuts |
| Date: | 2014-12-04 21:08:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20141204210834.GF25679@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> "I will produce a generic 'permission denied' error, and if the reason
> for the lack of permission is anything other than GRANT/REVOKE, then I
> will add it to the detail message."
That's what I had been thinking, on the assumption that individuals with
SQL-spec-type systems would be familiar with the GRANT/REVOKE system,
but..
> Seeing that we are planning to add more permissions systems of various
> kinds, I don't think it would be bad to uniformly add "You must have
> SELECT rights on relation X to SELECT from it" detail messages. The
> proposed changes would then be subset of that.
I'd be fine with that. It would mean an extra line of output in many
cases but we could at least be consistent across the backend with regard
to how these cases are handled...
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-12-04 21:10:02 | Re: Bugfix and new feature for PGXS |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-12-04 20:59:17 | Re: superuser() shortcuts |