From: | tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: replacing role-level NOINHERIT with a grant-level option |
Date: | 2022-07-11 16:48:21 |
Message-ID: | CAC6VRoZLfROLLsCOVkOSmPRwRS5h4Wyw_ntwaQ1K9s_HQp9Y+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 9, 2022 at 1:27 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 8:04 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 1:17 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > > If by "bolder" you mean "mark [NO]INHERIT as
> deprecated-and-to-be-removed
> > > and begin emitting WARNINGs when it and WITH INHERIT DEFAULT are
> used," I
> > > think it's worth consideration. I suspect it will be hard to sell
> removing
> > > [NO]INHERIT in v16 because it would introduce a compatibility break
> without
> > > giving users much time to migrate. I could be wrong, though.
> >
> > It's a fair point. But, if our goal for v16 is to do something that
> > could lead to an eventual deprecation of [NO]INHERIT, I still think
> > removing WITH INHERIT DEFAULT from the patch set is probably a good
> > idea.
>
> So here is an updated patch with that change.
>
>
Thanks, Robert, I created a few objects with different privileges on v14.4
e.g
postgres=# \dp+ atest2
Access privileges
Schema | Name | Type | Access privileges |
Column privileges | Policies
--------+--------+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-------------------+----------
public | atest2 | table | regress_priv_user1=arwdDxt/regress_priv_user1+|
|
| | | regress_priv_user2=r/regress_priv_user1 +|
|
| | | regress_priv_user3=w/regress_priv_user1 +|
|
| | | regress_priv_user4=a/regress_priv_user1 +|
|
| | | regress_priv_user5=D/regress_priv_user1 |
|
(1 row)
and found that after pg_upgrade there is no change on privileges on
v16(w/patch)
One scenario where the syntax is created in pg_dumpall is wrong
postgres=# create user u1;
CREATE ROLE
postgres=# create group g1 with user u1;
CREATE ROLE
postgres=# grant g1 to u1 with admin option, inherit false;
GRANT ROLE
postgres=#
Perform pg_dumpall
This is the syntax coming
"
-- Role memberships
--
GRANT g1 TO u1 WITH ADMIN OPTION WITH INHERIT FALSE GRANTED BY edb;
"
If we run this syntax on psql, there is an error.
postgres=# GRANT g1 TO u1 WITH ADMIN OPTION WITH INHERIT FALSE GRANTED BY
edb;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "WITH"
regards,
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-11 16:58:51 | Re: AIX support - alignment issues |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-07-11 16:46:01 | Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage |