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

Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Date: 2009-06-28 22:10:23
Message-ID: 1246227023.23359.79.camel@jdavis (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:03 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * David Fetter (david(at)fetter(dot)org) wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not
> > > work  prospectively.  We have no way ATM to store permissions for an
> > > object  that does not currently exist.
> > 
> > There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions
> > changes.  Are we restarting them here?
> Having default permissions for new objects (something a couple of us are
> working towards) would help with this situation some.  I don't think the
> ground Jeff's proposal would cover is entirely covered by just having
> default permissions though.

One case that it would not cover is creating new roles that you would
like to have access to existing objects. Defaults may be useful
independently, though, so I think the proposals are overlapping, but
generally different.

	Jeff Davis

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2009-06-28 22:28:32
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-06-28 22:07:43
Subject: Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group