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

Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
Date: 2010-08-11 07:57:24
Message-ID: 1281513444.2142.1473.camel@ebony (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
> >> So there's no way to see if a particular privilege has been granted to public. ISTM 'public' should be accepted, since you can't use it as a role name anyway...
> > It's a bit sticky - you could make that work for
> > has_table_privilege(name, oid, text) or has_table_privilege(name,
> > text, text), but what would you do about the versions whose first
> > argument is an oid?
> Nothing.  The only reason to use those forms is in a join against
> pg_authid, and the "public" group doesn't have an entry there.

ISTM this bug should be on the open items list...

 Simon Riggs 
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Vik ReykjaDate: 2010-08-11 08:00:31
Subject: Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment
Previous:From: Marko TiikkajaDate: 2010-08-11 07:54:00
Subject: Re: assertions and constraint triggers

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group