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

Re: permissions on tables

From: Vishal Arora <aroravishal22(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: "Hyatt, Gordon" <gordon(dot)hyatt(at)joslin(dot)harvard(dot)edu>,<pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: permissions on tables
Date: 2008-03-18 17:14:35
Message-ID: BLU110-W2139D7E8056C2C1F4D6847A9060@phx.gbl (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin


Subject: Re: [ADMIN] permissions on tablesDate: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:30:31 -0400From: Gordon(dot)Hyatt(at)joslin(dot)harvard(dot)eduTo: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org








Thanks for your response.
 
I did not explicitly use NOINHERIT (in fact I used the PgAdmin v1.6.3 New Login Role and new Group Role wizard to create the user).  I see that NOINHERIT is specified when I look at the SQL pane in PgAdmin for that login role.
 
I’ll remove and recreate that user allowing permissions to inherit from parent roles.  
 
It seems to me that one would usually (not always) want user roles to inherit privileges from parent roles (including group roles).  Do you know why PgAdmin defaults to NOINHERIT on user roles?  
 
Please use PgAdmin Support (pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org) mailing list for PgAdmin related queries.
 
 
Thanks, again.
 
Gord
 
 





From: Vishal Arora [mailto:aroravishal22(at)hotmail(dot)com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 4:33 AMTo: Hyatt, Gordon; pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)orgSubject: RE: [ADMIN] permissions on tables
 




Subject: [ADMIN] permissions on tablesDate: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:26:27 -0400From: Gordon(dot)Hyatt(at)joslin(dot)harvard(dot)eduTo: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org

Forgive me if this is not the correct list for this type of question.
 
I thought I understood PostgreSQL’s privileges well enough, but I’m running into problems, so I must misunderstand something.  
 
I have a website that I’m adding functionality to, and therefore need to expand the database.  The database already contains around 30 populated tables with 1 group role (group_reader) and 1 user role (user_reader).  To all existing tables, I’d assigned PUBLIC and group_reader SELECT privilege.  
 
Everything is working fine.
 
Now, I created one more group role (called group_writer) and another user role (user_writer) and make sure that user_writer is a member of group_writer.
 
Did you use NOINHERIT while creating the user role? if yes, please create it without this parameter.
 
I then explicitly grant group_writer SELECT privilege on all tables.  (I know this is technically not necessary as PUBLIC has already been assigned SELECT privilege.)
 
I created (tbl_batch) and deliberately decided to not grant PUBLIC access to this table.  Instead, I granted group_writer SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE privileges to this table.  Looking at the ACL list for this table confirms this.
 
When I attempt to access this table as user_writer, I’m denied access.  I’m access this through Tomcat and verifying the connected user as user_writer.
 
I shouldn’t have to grant the PUBLIC  group full access to this table as well, should I?
 
>From what I understand of the manual, a user’s privileges are the SUM of the privileges of all groups of which that user is a member.  Therefore, user_writer’s privileges should be {SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE} from group_writer plus {} from PUBLIC, which should yield {SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE}.
 
 
BTW, I’m running 8.2.6 on WinXP x64 SP2.
 
 
Thanks,
 
Gord
 
 



Detailed profiles 4 marriage! Only at Shaadi.com Try it!
_________________________________________________________________
Post ads for free - to sell, rent or even buy.www.yello.in
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=186

In response to

Responses

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Vishal AroraDate: 2008-03-18 17:16:15
Subject: Re: Locks with no database or relation
Previous:From: Julius TuskenisDate: 2008-03-18 14:46:50
Subject: Locks with no database or relation

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