| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sorting out acl fixes |
| Date: | 2004-07-22 02:03:05 |
| Message-ID: | 40FF2059.3020903@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 1. Should we make the owner aclitem NEVER appear in the acl list? ie.
> when we do the first grant on an object, we don't put in a default acl
> for the owner. Instead we special case the aclcheck to always allow the
> owner full privilieges? Also, if the first grant was 'select' for the
> 'other' user, and then we changed the owner to the 'other' user, should
> we erase the 'other' user's aclitem?
I forgot to mention - under this schema grants/revokes to the owner
become no-ops.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-22 02:14:24 | Re: Sorting out acl fixes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-22 02:01:21 | Re: check point segments leakage ? |