On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
>> >> So there's no way to see if a particular privilege has been granted to public. ISTM 'public' should be accepted, since you can't use it as a role name anyway...
>> > It's a bit sticky - you could make that work for
>> > has_table_privilege(name, oid, text) or has_table_privilege(name,
>> > text, text), but what would you do about the versions whose first
>> > argument is an oid?
>> Nothing. The only reason to use those forms is in a join against
>> pg_authid, and the "public" group doesn't have an entry there.
> ISTM this bug should be on the open items list...
I don't think this is a bug.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-08-11 10:55:29|
|Subject: Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-08-11 10:25:13|
|Subject: Re: MERGE command for inheritance|