| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix output of zero privileges in psql |
| Date: | 2023-10-24 02:43:40 |
| Message-ID: | 473730.1698115420@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 11:37 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> I do believe that we should be against exposing, like in this case, any internal
>> implementation detail that encodes something (e.g., default privileges) as NULL
>> in the catalogs, to the user of the psql meta-commands.
> Sure, it would be best to hide this implementation detail from the user.
> The correct way to do that would be to fake an ACL entry like "laurenz=arwdDxt/laurenz"
> if there is a NULL in the catalog, but that would add a ton of special-case
> code to psql, which does not look appealing at all.
For better or worse, that *is* the backend's catalog representation,
and I don't think that psql would be doing our users a service by
trying to obscure the fact. They'd run into it anyway the moment
they look at the catalogs with anything but a \d-something command.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-10-24 02:44:35 | Re: Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be allocated to backends. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-10-24 02:40:07 | Re: LLVM 16 (opaque pointers) |