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

Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
Date: 2010-06-11 03:18:23
Message-ID: 27588.1276226303@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
>> So there's no way to see if a particular privilege has been granted to public. ISTM 'public' should be accepted, since you can't use it as a role name anyway...

> It's a bit sticky - you could make that work for
> has_table_privilege(name, oid, text) or has_table_privilege(name,
> text, text), but what would you do about the versions whose first
> argument is an oid?

Nothing.  The only reason to use those forms is in a join against
pg_authid, and the "public" group doesn't have an entry there.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2010-06-11 04:00:48
Subject: Re: LLVM / clang
Previous:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-06-11 02:40:34
Subject: Re: ps display "waiting for max_standby_delay"

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