Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > r=# REVOKE ALL ON FUNCTION weekdate (date) FROM PUBLIC;
> > REVOKE
> > r=# GRANT ALL ON FUNCTION weekdate (date) TO PUBLIC;
> > GRANT
> > r=# REVOKE ALL ON FUNCTION weekdate (date) FROM rbt;
> > ERROR: dependent privileges exist
> > HINT: Use CASCADE to revoke them too.
> Ugh. We could fix pg_dump to output the commands in a better order,
> but that won't help for dumps from existing releases.
> Given that rbt is the owner of the object, I'm not sure that it is
> sensible to interpret the above as revoking his ability to grant
> privileges to others. Seems to me that his ability to GRANT is inherent
> in being the owner, and as such his "grant option" bits are irrelevant.
> So maybe the commands are okay and the backend's interpretation is
> Peter, any thoughts?
Has this been resolved?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2003-08-31 04:42:12|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New array functions|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-08-31 04:05:59|
|Subject: Re: "is_superuser" parameter creates inconsistencies|