Re: Why grantor is owner in this case?

Dear Tom,

I'm sorry to bother you. i really care about this behavior, but i couldn't find the discussions you mentioned in pgsql-hackers archives.
Would you please tell me more about the discussions(about date? the related issue?), so that i can search it and find it more easily?
Thank you very much !

Regards
-Dongni

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> ???? news:4759(dot)1261758025(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us(dot)(dot)(dot)
> "donniehan" <donniehan(at)126(dot)com> writes:
>> I have a question about the grantor. Why the grantor is owner in the following case ? I think it should be postgres(dba).
>
> Grants done by a superuser on an object he doesn't own are treated as
> being done by the object owner instead. Otherwise you end up with
> grants that don't have a clear chain of traceability to the owner,
> which causes all sorts of un-fun issues for REVOKE. (I'm too lazy
> to come up with the details right now, but if you care you can look
> back in the pgsql-hackers archives to find the discussions where this
> behavior was agreed on.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>