| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE ROLE bug? |
| Date: | 2025-02-05 15:45:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYVK6xfg-WqJuavjrB4A4PKWEsU39pgAkQ0S+NdwmM9wg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:21 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think that the desire to maintain
the distinction between membership and ADMIN OPTION makes sense as a
> general rule
I haven't worked through the details but I suspect part of the issue is
that we are not maintaining this distinction when it comes to prohibiting
circular dependencies. Might it be that we need to check for and prohibit
the admin and the set/inherit loops separately, but allow for an overall
loop so long as one direction is strictly admin and one direction is
strictly set/inherit?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-02-05 15:51:17 | Re: Failed assertion with jit enabled |
| Previous Message | Mohamed Badawy | 2025-02-05 15:29:15 | Inquiry About Google Summer of Code Projects |