Re: Allow CURRENT_ROLE in GRANTED BY

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allow CURRENT_ROLE in GRANTED BY
Date: 2020-12-30 12:43:39
Message-ID: CANP8+j+vJHt+RBLfFDFhiot1oe9yH0Lhs3tZ3htTtNYjYtzpJg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 18:40, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-06-24 20:21, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 2020-06-24 10:12, Vik Fearing wrote:
> >> On 6/24/20 8:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>> I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed: We
> >>> support GRANT role ... GRANTED BY CURRENT_USER, but we don't support
> >>> CURRENT_ROLE in that place, even though in PostgreSQL they are
> >>> equivalent. Here is a trivial patch to add that.
> >>
> >>
> >> The only thing that isn't dead-obvious about this patch is the commit
> >> message says "[PATCH 1/2]". What is in the other part?
> >
> > Hehe. The second patch is some in-progress work to add the GRANTED BY
> > clause to the regular GRANT command. More on that perhaps at a later date.
>
> Here is the highly anticipated and quite underwhelming second part of
> this patch set.

Looks great, but no test to confirm it works. I would suggest adding a
test and committing directly since I don't see any cause for further
discussion.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2020-12-30 12:55:47 Re: Fail Fast In CTAS/CMV If Relation Already Exists To Avoid Unnecessary Rewrite, Planning Costs
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2020-12-30 12:33:56 Re: create table like: ACCESS METHOD