Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Date: 2005-07-21 19:34:39
Message-ID: 22187.1121974479@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> BTW, I realized we do not support granting roles to PUBLIC:
>>
>> regression=# create role r;
>> CREATE ROLE
>> regression=# grant r to public;
>> ERROR: role "public" does not exist
>>
>> but as far as I can tell SQL99 expects this to work.

> Indeed, I believe you're correct, sorry about missing that.

However, on second thought I'm not sure that this is sensible anyway.

Consider that every role is implicitly a member of PUBLIC --- so isn't
the above a creation of a circular membership loop, which is (for good
reason) forbidden by the spec?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-21 19:40:59 Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2005-07-21 19:28:26 Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-21 19:40:59 Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2005-07-21 19:28:26 Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated