| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OWNER TO on all objects |
| Date: | 2004-06-17 01:52:04 |
| Message-ID: | 40D0F944.1010808@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>I worded that badly. I meant "allow a user to change the owner of
>>something to what it already is". ie. Just make the no-op allowed by
>>everyone. session_auth already does this.
>
>
> Ah. Okay, no objection to that. (In fact I believe we put in the
> special case for session_auth for exactly the same reason.)
Actually, do I make it that anyone can do a no-op user change, or can
only the user who is the existing owner do the no-op? It's a very tiny
different and probably won't make much difference but perhaps it's
better to make it a bit tighter check? What do you think?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-06-17 01:58:47 | Re: OWNER TO on all objects |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2004-06-17 00:44:06 | Re: PlPerlNG - first alpha code |