Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
Date: 2010-08-11 10:48:30
Message-ID: AANLkTi=qy42A14WrOP01TVdOvTwHAZkkEy+Gobt7Xh=a@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-08-11 10:55:29
Subject: Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-08-11 10:25:13
Subject: Re: MERGE command for inheritance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group