Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege

On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 06:48 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > 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...
>
> I don't think this is a bug.

It clearly rates higher in importance than most of the things on the
open items list of late...

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services