On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
>> > Address problem where superusers are assumed to be members of all groups
>> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-04/msg00337.php
>> This turns out to be a one-liner.
> I really don't know that I agree with removing this, to be honest.. I
> haven't got time at the moment to really discuss it, but at the very
> least, not being able to 'set role' to any user when postgres would be
> REALLY annoying..
Sure. But I don't believe anyone has proposed changing that. What
we're talking about here is that, for example, setting a reject rule
for a certain group in pg_hba.conf will always match superusers, even
though they're not in that group.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2011-09-12 03:29:59|
|Subject: Re: superusers are members of all roles?|
|Previous:||From: Amit Kapila||Date: 2011-09-12 03:08:25|
|Subject: Re: cheaper snapshots redux|