| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE |
| Date: | 2022-12-14 02:44:14 |
| Message-ID: | Y5k4flnY0tkSobeo@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:45:53AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Seems like a good idea but I'm not sure about this hunk:
>
> TailMatches("GRANT|REVOKE", "ALTER", "SYSTEM") ||
> - TailMatches("REVOKE", "GRANT", "OPTION", "FOR", "ALTER", "SYSTEM"))
> + TailMatches("REVOKE", "GRANT", "OPTION", "FOR", "ALTER", "SYSTEM") ||
> + TailMatches("REVOKE", "GRANT", "OPTION", "FOR", "SET"))
>
> That might be a correct change for other reasons, but it doesn't seem
> related to this patch. The rest looks good.
(Forgot to press "Send" a few days ago..)
Hmm, right, I see your point. I have just moved that to reorder the
terms alphabetically, but moving the check on REVOKE GRANT OPTION FOR
SET is not mandatory. I have moved it back in its previous
position, leading to less noise in the diffs, and applied the rest as
of 9d0cf57.
Thanks!
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-12-14 02:59:48 | Rework confusing permissions for LOCK TABLE |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-12-14 02:38:58 | Refactor SCRAM code to dynamically handle hash type and key length |