Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: 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 22:28:32
Message-ID: 4A47EE90.2060205@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> David Fetter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> * Users who come from MySQL every once in a while, annoyed that
>>>> we don't support "GRANT ... *" syntax.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm missing what's wrong with a wild-card GRANT syntax for this
>>> case.
>>>
>> 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?
>
>
>

*shrug*

It's not on the TODO list. I recall it being raised from time to time
but I certainly don't recall a consensus that it should be done, nor
how, so if you're implying that such a thing is a settled decision I
suspect you're not entirely correct. Of course, my memory has been known
to have errors ...

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2009-06-28 22:35:38 Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-06-28 22:10:23 Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier