Re: inconsistent owners in newly created databases?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: inconsistent owners in newly created databases?
Date: 2004-05-04 13:47:42
Message-ID: 7870.1083678462@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> I was thinking about something fuzzy enough as:

> UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_namespace
> SET nspowner=datdba, nspacl=NULL -- NULL means default rights...

> The later is simple and makes sense anyway for a newly created database.

No, I don't think it does. The DBA presently can set up a site-wide
policy about use of "public" by altering its permissions in template1.
For example, he might revoke create access from most users. People will
be surprised if that fails to carry over to created databases.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2004-05-04 14:34:27 Re: inconsistent owners in newly created databases?
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2004-05-04 13:40:18 The features I'm waiting for.