| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Superowners |
| Date: | 2017-01-26 18:12:21 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbRHTnZzadCS4kYdRdjqdgO+eEMA8VXi1GK+6d7R8AL4A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, January 26, 2017, Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:37:44PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 1/24/17 8:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > What about just saying that the database owner has those privileges?
> > > After all, the ultimate privilege of an owner is to drop the object
> > > (and then remake it as she pleases), and the DB owner has that option
> > > w.r.t. the whole database. So I'm not sure we need to invent a new
> > > concept.
> >
> > A database owner does not necessarily have the permission to create a
> > new database.
>
> Right.
>
> Would a "TRUNCATE <database>;" (i.e. empty the database, but don't
> delete it) make sense/be useful for that maybe?
>
>
Conceptually we might already have that.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-drop-owned.html
Drop Owned ...
Though I suspect there might be caveats since indications are it wasn't
designed with this particular use case in mind,
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-26 18:14:59 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-26 18:10:55 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |