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

Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures
Date: 2004-05-18 07:10:30
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0405180902400.19985@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Dear Bruce,

> > > Well, if I issue a "REVOKE" and the rights are not revoked and could never
> > > have been because I have no right to issue such statement on the object, I
> > > tend to call this deep absence of success a "failure".
> >
> > > If I do the very opposite GRANT, I have a clear "permission denied".
> >
> > Oh, I thought you were complaining that revoking rights not previously
> > granted should be an error.  I agree with the above; in fact it's a
> > duplicate of a previous complaint.
>
> Did we resolve this?  Is it a TODO?

No? No?

There has been a lot of off-line discussion about how to interpret the
standard on this point. I'm not even sure we perfectly agreed in the end,
although our understanding of the issues improved a lot through the
discussion. As a summary, it is pretty subtle, especially as the standard
wording is contrived, and postgres does not do what should be done in a
lot of cases. There are also actual "security" bugs.

For the TODO, I would suggest something general:

- fix grant/revoke wrt SQL standard, validate errors, warnings and successes.

-- 
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Federico Di GregorioDate: 2004-05-18 08:32:36
Subject: soname of libpq
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-05-17 19:18:13
Subject: Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures

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