Excerpts from KaiGai Kohei's message of mar oct 05 00:06:05 -0400 2010:
> (2010/09/07 6:16), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of jue jun 10 17:54:43 -0400 2010:
> >> test_us(at)workbook=# select has_table_privilege( 'public', 'test', 'SELECT' );
> >> ERROR: role "public" does not exist
> > Here's a patch implementing this idea.
> I checked this patch.
> It seems to me it replaces whole of get_role_oid() in has_*_privilege
> functions by the new get_role_oid_or_public(), so this patch allows
> to accept the pseudo "public" user in consistent way.
> The pg_has_role_*() functions are exception. It will raise an error
> with error message of "role "public" does not exist".
> Is it an expected bahavior, isn't it?
Yes. You cannot grant "public" to roles; according to the definition of
public, this doesn't make sense. Accordingly, I chose to reject
"public" as an input for pg_has_role and friends.
> > Another thing that could raise eyebrows is that I chose to remove the
> > "missing_ok" argument from get_role_oid_or_public, so it's not a perfect
> > mirror of it. None of the current callers need it, but perhaps people
> > would like these functions to be consistent.
> Tom Lane suggested to add missing_ok argument, although it is not a must-
Actually I think he suggested the opposite.
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-10-06 17:40:27|
|Subject: Re: patch: tsearch - some memory diet |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-10-06 16:50:29|
|Subject: Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?)|