Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Date: 2009-06-28 22:10:23
Message-ID: 1246227023.23359.79.camel@jdavis (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:03 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * David Fetter (david(at)fetter(dot)org) wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not
> > > work  prospectively.  We have no way ATM to store permissions for an
> > > object  that does not currently exist.
> > 
> > There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions
> > changes.  Are we restarting them here?
> 
> Having default permissions for new objects (something a couple of us are
> working towards) would help with this situation some.  I don't think the
> ground Jeff's proposal would cover is entirely covered by just having
> default permissions though.
> 

One case that it would not cover is creating new roles that you would
like to have access to existing objects. Defaults may be useful
independently, though, so I think the proposals are overlapping, but
generally different.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2009-06-28 22:28:32
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-06-28 22:07:43
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group