| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/backend/catalog aclchk.c |
| Date: | 2003-10-06 06:15:32 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0310060812430.2274-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> So an owner can never revoke his own grant options? That seems
> reasonable offhand, and compatible with our previous notion that
> the owner's ability to GRANT was inherent and nonrevocable.
>
> But I wonder how this squares with the SQL spec...
The root of this problem is that revoking privileges from the owner
doesn't square with the SQL spec in the first place. Allowing having a
grant option without the privilege is not a state that's supported by the
SQL standard, but it just continues the practice we've always had. This
patch just takes care that the recursive revoke action is not invoked in
this case.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut - PostgreSQL | 2003-10-06 06:20:11 | pgsql-server/src bin/pg_controldata/po/es.po b ... |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-10-06 04:09:21 | Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/ref/copy.sgml rc/bac ... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-06 06:20:13 | Re: extra_float_digits question |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-10-06 06:06:36 | Re: count(*) slow on large tables |