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

Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/backend/catalog aclchk.c

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committerspgsql-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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-10-06 06:20:13
Subject: Re: extra_float_digits question
Previous:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-10-06 06:06:36
Subject: Re: count(*) slow on large tables

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Peter Eisentraut - PostgreSQLDate: 2003-10-06 06:20:11
Subject: pgsql-server/src bin/pg_controldata/po/es.po b ...
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2003-10-06 04:09:21
Subject: Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/ref/copy.sgml rc/bac ...

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