| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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: | 2009-06-29 18:15:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1246299322.11096.55.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 10:52 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 1) ALTER SCHEMA SET DEFAULT PRIVILEGES statements which sets default
> permissions, by ROLE and object type, on new objects.
>
> 2) a statement to set privs on all existing objects by type and role
> within a schema.
I don't see why either of these things should be properties of the
schema. It seems to make much more sense for these defaults to be a
property of the user who creates the objects.
If #1 and #2 are both implemented as properties of the user, I think
that solves the use case I brought up. It would still be difficult to
see the overall scheme at a glance, but I don't think that's a major
problem.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-29 18:21:37 | Re: Query progress indication - an implementation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-29 18:07:23 | Re: Query progress indication - an implementation |