From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |
Date: | 2009-08-05 16:51:41 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070908050951s3e5df452se4c610f01b80bb7d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> My understanding is that this patch will need to be reworked as well
>> based on Tom's comments on "DefaultACLs". Does that sound right?
>> Should we expect a new version this week, or defer this until the
>> September CommitFest?
>
> I was planning to go review that patch too, even though it's presumably
> not committable yet.
OK, that's good information, thanks.
> I'm not sure whether there is consensus on not using GRANT ON VIEW
> (ie, having these patches treat tables and views alike). I was waiting
> to see if Stephen would put forward a convincing counterargument ...
The argument is better for defaults that it is for grant on all, I
think, though we also don't want the two to be asymmetric. Defaults
need to be really simple to have any value, I think, and avoid
violating the POLA. But bulk-grant could be based on object type,
object name (with wildcard or regexp pattern), schema membership, or
maybe other things, and I think that would be quite useful if we can
figure out how to make it clean and elegant.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-05 16:59:52 | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-08-05 16:48:37 | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |