From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <nmisch(at)google(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to clean out pg_init_privs grants |
Date: | 2024-05-25 14:47:57 |
Message-ID: | 847249.1716648477@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> writes:
> Having an pg_init_privs entry referencing a non-existing user is
> certainly of no practical use.
Sure, that's not up for debate. What I think we're discussing
right now is
1. What other cases are badly handled by the pg_init_privs
mechanisms.
2. How much of that is practical to fix in v17, seeing that
it's all long-standing bugs and we're already past beta1.
I kind of doubt that the answer to #2 is "all of it".
But perhaps we can do better than "none of it".
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Xing Guo | 2024-05-25 15:52:22 | Fix an incorrect assertion condition in mdwritev(). |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2024-05-25 14:09:44 | Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to clean out pg_init_privs grants |