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>,PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures
Date: 2004-06-10 09:07:16
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0406101100130.23525@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Dear Bruce,

> > So maybe the following TODO could be kept:
> >  - validate grant/revoke (error, warning, success0 wrt sql standard
> >
> > I may be interested in implementing ROLEs someday, and such tests would be
> > welcome just to check that nothing is broken.
>
> Unless someone can say it is wrong I am not inclinded to add a TODO item
> that is only possible.

Sorry, I do not understand your argument, what you mean by "only
possible". Or are you talking about roles??

I see TODO items as wishes, and I'm not sure I can see what is wrong with
wishing better/full testing of postgresql data access controls and compare
the results with what is defined by the norm?

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-06-10 12:09:58
Subject: Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures
Previous:From: Martino SerriDate: 2004-06-10 08:06:44
Subject: PostgreSQL does not have native spinlock support on this platform

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