| From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Seltenreich <andreas+pg(at)gate450(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Must be owner to truncate? |
| Date: | 2005-08-24 12:29:22 |
| Message-ID: | mkpog1982o9fn9qfmq8q9sf0jvlq04j5p3@4ax.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:01:00 +0200, Andreas Seltenreich
<andreas+pg(at)gate450(dot)dyndns(dot)org> wrote:
>However, a question arose quickly: According to the standard, revoking
>INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE after GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES would leave the
>relation read-only, but with the TRUNCATE privilege lying around, this
>would no longer be true for PostgreSQL.
I'd say that the TRUNCATE privilege includes DELETE, so that REVOKE
DELETE implicitly revokes TRUNCATE and GRANT TRUNCATE implicitly
grants DELETE.
Servus
Manfred
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-08-24 12:44:29 | Re: Must be owner to truncate? |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-08-24 12:10:13 | Re: PATCH to allow concurrent VACUUMs to not lock each |