| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: role self-revocation |
| Date: | 2022-03-07 20:03:55 |
| Message-ID: | F9EB1DD2-5739-4954-AC16-372E289A55DD@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mar 7, 2022, at 12:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> It's been pointed out upthread that this would have undesirable
> security implications, because the admin option would be inherited,
> and the implicit permission isn't.
Right, but with a reflexive self-admin-option, we could document that it works in a non-inherited way. We'd just be saying the current hard-coded behavior is an option which can be revoked rather than something you're stuck with.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2022-03-07 20:04:01 | Re: support for MERGE |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-07 20:01:37 | Re: role self-revocation |