| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs |
| Date: | 2009-09-29 13:40:40 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909290640h4384e645r4a299dbd7f6dddbd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> > One potential trouble spot is that presumably the built-in default
>> > privileges (eg, PUBLIC EXECUTE for functions) would *not* cumulate
>> > with user-specified defaults.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> How would you have a default that says "I *don't* want public execute on
> my new functions"?
Hmm...
Maybe instead of having built-in default privileges, we could view
each user as having their global default ACL pre-initialized to that
same set of privileges (of course we needn't store it unless and until
they modify it). Then they could add to those or take away from them,
plus add additional privileges at other levels.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-29 13:41:58 | Re: [PATCH] Reworks for Access Control facilities (r2311) |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2009-09-29 13:07:40 | Re: Rejecting weak passwords |