From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Role incompatibilities |
Date: | 2006-03-24 20:56:39 |
Message-ID: | 9234.1143233799@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Eh, it does and it doesn't. The SQL standard says that no roles are
> automatically inheirited and that you have to 'set role' to them. Thus,
> all non-user roles which are granted to users in Postgres would need to
> be defined 'noinherit' to have things work as the spec wants.
We note in the CREATE ROLE docs:
The behavior specified by the SQL standard is most closely approximated
by giving users the NOINHERIT attribute, while roles are given the
INHERIT attribute.
For the purposes of the information_schema, it might work best to
consider NOINHERIT (rather than LOGIN) as being what identifies a user
rather than a role.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | elein | 2006-03-24 21:40:26 | Re: Domains as Subtypes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-24 20:47:13 | Re: Domains as Subtypes |