Re: Why grantor is owner in this case?

From: "donniehan" <donniehan(at)126(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why grantor is owner in this case?
Date: 2009-12-28 02:59:27
Message-ID: hh96uh$9ja$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your information. One more question, if i wanna get the accurate information about grantor(Sometimes the application just needs the information), what can i do?
Apparently i cannot get from the acls, so where can i get the info?

-Dongni

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> ???? news:4759(dot)1261758025(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us(dot)(dot)(dot)
> "donniehan" <donniehan(at)126(dot)com> writes:
>> I have a question about the grantor. Why the grantor is owner in the following case ? I think it should be postgres(dba).
>
> Grants done by a superuser on an object he doesn't own are treated as
> being done by the object owner instead. Otherwise you end up with
> grants that don't have a clear chain of traceability to the owner,
> which causes all sorts of un-fun issues for REVOKE. (I'm too lazy
> to come up with the details right now, but if you care you can look
> back in the pgsql-hackers archives to find the discussions where this
> behavior was agreed on.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message donniehan 2009-12-28 06:30:25 Re: Why grantor is owner in this case?
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2009-12-28 00:30:44 Re: Finding the bin path