| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, steve(at)supabase(dot)io, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser |
| Date: | 2022-11-18 21:33:19 |
| Message-ID: | 2271312.1668807199@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This makes sense. But do we really need to store the OID of the role?
> validate_option_array_item() already checks if the placeholder option
> passes validation for PGC_SUSET. So, we can just save a flag
> indicating that this check was not successful. If so, then the value
> stored can be only used for PGC_USERSET. Do you think this would be
> correct?
Meh ... doesn't seem like much of an improvement. You still need
to store something that's not there now. This also seems to require
some shaky assumptions about decisions having been made when storing
still being valid later on. Given the possibility of granting or
revoking permissions for SET, I think we don't really want it to act
that way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-11-18 21:37:31 | Re: fix stats_fetch_consistency value in postgresql.conf.sample |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2022-11-18 21:26:27 | Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser |