Re: Users and object privileges maintenance

From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Lok P <loknath(dot)73(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Users and object privileges maintenance
Date: 2024-02-18 14:40:04
Message-ID: CAFCRh-_-x0Xg--hdKMuTa=x1XqVkVJuPEMY2vdGXFwsd5ipf2Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 3:27 PM Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
wrote:

> On 18.02.2024 15:19, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 12:30 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
> wrote:
>
>
>> 2. In PostgreSQL, there is the important concept of ownership, which is
>> not tied to the schema.
>> The owner is the user who created the object.
>>
>
> Personally I find that confusing. I wouldn't mind schema objects all
> belonging to the one owner.
> Or being [able] to enforce that, as an opt-in option. Not sure what's the
> benefits of different owners for a schemas objects are.
>
> The situation is even more confusing :-)
> Roles with membership in object owner role acts as an owner.
> For example they can modify or drop object or grant/revoke access to object.
>
>
Well, membership in a role mean you can "become that role", no? Thus this
seems logical,
and not confusing to me, that you can act as the owner, since you SET ROLE
to the owner.
Or am I missing something else? --DD

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Luzanov 2024-02-18 15:33:57 Re: Users and object privileges maintenance
Previous Message Pavel Luzanov 2024-02-18 14:27:09 Re: Users and object privileges maintenance