| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Patrick Stählin <me(at)packi(dot)ch>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add sentence about SECURITY LABEL object ownership |
| Date: | 2025-06-06 01:18:02 |
| Message-ID: | 199dfdd7fdea9ac1d654442dd154f3ef6f6db51d.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> > On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 15:29 +0200, Patrick Stählin wrote:
> > > I noticed that we don't document that you need to own the object being
> > > modified by SECURITY LABEL.
>
> Yeah, clearly a documentation oversight.
>
> > Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you have to be a member of the owning role?
> > But perhaps that would be complicated enough to confuse many users.
> > In general, +1 for documenting that.
>
> Our standard boilerplate for this is, eg,
>
> You must own the table to use <command>ALTER TABLE</command>.
>
> I don't see a reason to do it differently here.
Objection withdrawn.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-06-06 11:38:35 | Clarify VACUUM FULL exclusion in total_vacuum_time docs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-06-05 15:19:02 | Re: Add sentence about SECURITY LABEL object ownership |