Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
Date: 2004-06-02 14:37:31
Message-ID: 24160.1086187051@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> The problem here is not with pg_dump; the problem is that dropping
>> privileges doesn't cascade to dropping objects that are dependent on
>> those privileges. AFAICS the SQL spec requires us to be able to do
>> the latter.

> The spec really requires that?? So basically we have RESTRICT and
> CASCADE on REVOKE?

Well, the spec doesn't have create permissions per se, but they do have
a "usage" right on domains, and they specify that revoking that results
in dropping objects:

7) For every abandoned domain descriptor DO, let S1.DN be the
<domain name> of DO. The following <drop domain statement> is
effectively executed without further Access Rule checking:

DROP DOMAIN S1.DN CASCADE

Similarly, revoking access to tables etc. results in physical changes to
views that reference those tables. So I think the idea is pretty clear.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-06-02 14:44:07 Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2004-06-02 14:34:56 Re: sync vs. fsync question