| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why no pg_has_role(..., 'ADMIN')? |
| Date: | 2024-09-20 18:49:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ44MXgcgLwyPJJ8kypRezOJ=BOUsAPs9Q=rJGKQQLCwA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 2:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm now inclined to add wording within the pg_has_role entry, along
> the lines of
>
> WITH ADMIN OPTION or WITH GRANT OPTION can be added to any of
> these privilege types to test whether ADMIN privilege is held
> (all six spellings test the same thing).
I don't have an opinion about the details, but +1 for documenting it
somehow. I also think it's weird that we have six spellings that test
the same thing, none of which are $SUBJECT. pg_has_role seems a little
half-baked to me...
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-20 19:20:35 | Re: Why no pg_has_role(..., 'ADMIN')? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-20 18:34:27 | Re: Why no pg_has_role(..., 'ADMIN')? |