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

Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Date: 2009-06-28 22:03:48
Message-ID: 20090628220348.GN20436@tamriel.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* David Fetter (david(at)fetter(dot)org) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not
> > work  prospectively.  We have no way ATM to store permissions for an
> > object  that does not currently exist.
> 
> There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions
> changes.  Are we restarting them here?

Having default permissions for new objects (something a couple of us are
working towards) would help with this situation some.  I don't think the
ground Jeff's proposal would cover is entirely covered by just having
default permissions though.

	Stephen

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-06-28 22:06:30
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-06-28 21:57:51
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

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