Re: Why grantor is owner in this case?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "donniehan" <donniehan(at)126(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why grantor is owner in this case?
Date: 2009-12-25 16:20:25
Message-ID: 4759.1261758025@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"donniehan" <donniehan(at)126(dot)com> writes:
> I have a question about the grantor. Why the grantor is owner in the following case ? I think it should be postgres(dba).

Grants done by a superuser on an object he doesn't own are treated as
being done by the object owner instead. Otherwise you end up with
grants that don't have a clear chain of traceability to the owner,
which causes all sorts of un-fun issues for REVOKE. (I'm too lazy
to come up with the details right now, but if you care you can look
back in the pgsql-hackers archives to find the discussions where this
behavior was agreed on.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-25 16:23:52 Re: Out of space making backup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-12-25 16:12:38 Re: date_trunc on date is immutable?