Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> The problem here is not with pg_dump; the problem is that dropping
>> privileges doesn't cascade to dropping objects that are dependent on
>> those privileges.  AFAICS the SQL spec requires us to be able to do
>> the latter. 

> The spec really requires that??  So basically we have RESTRICT and 
> CASCADE on REVOKE?

Well, the spec doesn't have create permissions per se, but they do have
a "usage" right on domains, and they specify that revoking that results
in dropping objects:

         7) For every abandoned domain descriptor DO, let S1.DN be the
            <domain name> of DO. The following <drop domain statement> is
            effectively executed without further Access Rule checking:

              DROP DOMAIN S1.DN CASCADE

Similarly, revoking access to tables etc. results in physical changes to
views that reference those tables.  So I think the idea is pretty clear.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER at 2004-06-02 14:29:21 from Christopher Kings-Lynne

Responses

• Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER at 2004-06-02 14:54:36 from Christopher Kings-Lynne

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2004-06-02 14:44:07
	Subject: Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info
Previous:	From: Jan Wieck	Date: 2004-06-02 14:34:56
	Subject: Re: sync vs. fsync question