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

Re: pg_dump and REVOKE on function

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>,PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: pg_dump and REVOKE on function
Date: 2003-08-31 04:26:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> > r=# REVOKE ALL ON FUNCTION weekdate (date) FROM PUBLIC;
> > r=# GRANT ALL ON FUNCTION weekdate (date) TO PUBLIC;
> > r=# REVOKE ALL ON FUNCTION weekdate (date) FROM rbt;
> > ERROR:  dependent privileges exist
> > HINT:  Use CASCADE to revoke them too.
> Ugh.  We could fix pg_dump to output the commands in a better order,
> but that won't help for dumps from existing releases.
> Given that rbt is the owner of the object, I'm not sure that it is
> sensible to interpret the above as revoking his ability to grant
> privileges to others.  Seems to me that his ability to GRANT is inherent
> in being the owner, and as such his "grant option" bits are irrelevant.
> So maybe the commands are okay and the backend's interpretation is
> bogus.
> Peter, any thoughts?

Has this been resolved?

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2003-08-31 04:42:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New array functions
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-08-31 04:05:59
Subject: Re: "is_superuser" parameter creates inconsistencies

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