| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles |
| Date: | 2016-04-13 17:49:18 |
| Message-ID: | 11041.1460569758@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well ... yeah. But that doesn't mean it should be impossible to SET
>> to that role itself. I'm a little worried that could create strange
>> corner cases.
> Being able to create objects owned by a default role was one of those
> strange corner cases I was trying to avoid.
If you want to prevent that, I think it needs to be done somewhere else
than here. What about "ALTER OWNER TO pg_signal_backend", for instance?
But perhaps more to the point, why is it a strange corner case for one
of these roles to own objects? Isn't it *more* of a strange corner case
to try to prohibit it? Certainly the bootstrap superuser owns lots of
objects, and I don't see why these roles can't.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-04-13 18:01:04 | Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-13 17:45:15 | \crosstabview fixes |