From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: CREATE DATABASE WITH OWNER '??'; |
Date: | 2000-05-10 12:47:31 |
Message-ID: | 39195A63.D1F7CF6C@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 May 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > > CREATE DATABASE WITH OWNER?
> >
> > Databases already have owners, so this syntax extensions (not a bad idea
> > IMHO) isn't going to change the substance of things really.
>
> tables have owners .. right now, as far as I can tell, the database itself
> doesn't have an owner. Unless I'm missing something, any user that can
> connect to a database can create new tables in that database, regardless
> of what they can do to the existing tables in that database ...
hannu=# select * from pg_database;
datname | datdba | encoding | datpath
-----------+--------+----------+-----------
template1 | 501 | 0 | template1
hannu | 501 | 0 | hannu
(2 rows)
I'm pretty sure that the datdba field is the owner id.
That anyone is allowed to do anything is another matter.
-----------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-05-10 13:04:36 | lsof: can't read inpcb at 0x00000000 |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-05-10 12:18:41 | Re: Comparison PostgreSQL 7.0 vs. Interbase2000 (fwd) |