Re: Default permissisons from schemas

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Default permissisons from schemas
Date: 2007-01-24 16:32:53
Message-ID: 20070124163253.GN24675@kenobi.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Merlin Moncure (mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >when you create them. Table rights almost always follow broad rules
> >so it only natural to integrate that with schemas somehow...but
> >admittedly it is awkward to put it into GRANT (and I've thought alot a
> >bout.
>
> oops :( what I meant to say here is that I don't think it's possible
> to this in the way that Stephen wants because it would hack up GRANT
> to much. Tom was at least half right, this proposal was not discarded
> out of hand but it was on pretty shaky ground...I was one of the big
> supporters of extending grant this way in the original discussion but
> I think it might be the wrong approach.

err, what proposal wasn't touching the GRANT syntax at all but rather
adding some options to ALTER SCHEMA which I didn't think was all that
bad (and wasn't commented on except to point out that I needed to handle
different object types seperately). The current opposition, aiui, is
against having a 'default owner' for new objects in a schema and not the
default ACLs per schema.

I don't think it makes sense to have this syntax be part of the GRANT
syntax since it's really about a schema...

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message org 2007-01-24 16:34:05 Re: STOP all user access except for admin for a few minutes?
Previous Message Sorin Schwimmer 2007-01-24 16:26:43 New feature proposal