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

Re: [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow && pg_group -- UNTESTED

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow && pg_group -- UNTESTED
Date: 2005-01-26 01:52:14
Message-ID: 20050126015214.GW10437@ns.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> If he has admin option on his own role, sure.  But I suppose by default 
> we wouldn't.
> 
> One use case I see is if someone goes on vacation he can temporarily 
> grant the privileges held by his user account to others without 
> actually giving out the login data.

Alright.  I've thought about this some more and I think I agree with it.
A user doesn't implicitly have all rights on his own oid, but I guess
that wasn't ever really the case anyway (can't give himself superuser
rights, etc).  I'll begin working on this soon (possibly as soon as
Thursday evening) unless someone else has comments on it.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-01-26 02:30:23
Subject: Re: Concurrent free-lock
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2005-01-26 01:10:32
Subject: Re: Patent issues and 8.1

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2005-01-26 03:07:54
Subject: Continue transactions after errors in psql
Previous:From: Ed L.Date: 2005-01-25 23:49:15
Subject: dbsize patch

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