| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |
| Date: | 2015-03-05 02:34:26 |
| Message-ID: | 54F7C0B2.3020308@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/28/15 10:10 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Adam,
>
> * Adam Brightwell (adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com) wrote:
>> I have attached and updated patch for review.
>
> Thanks! I've gone over this and made quite a few documentation and
> comment updates, but not too much else, so I'm pretty happy with how
> this is coming along. As mentioned elsewhere, this conflicts with the
> GetUserId() to has_privs_of_role() cleanup, but as I anticipate handling
> both this patch and that one, I'll find some way to manage. :)
>
> Updated patch attached. Barring objections, I'll be moving forward with
> this soonish. Would certainly appreciate any additional testing or
> review that you (or anyone!) has time to provide.
Let's move this discussion to the right thread.
Why are we not using roles and function execute privileges for this?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-03-05 02:57:27 | Re: anyarray |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-03-05 02:28:28 | Re: Proposal: knowing detail of config files via SQL |