Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Dear Bruce,
> > > > Well, if I issue a "REVOKE" and the rights are not revoked and could never
> > > > have been because I have no right to issue such statement on the object, I
> > > > tend to call this deep absence of success a "failure".
> > >
> > > > If I do the very opposite GRANT, I have a clear "permission denied".
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought you were complaining that revoking rights not previously
> > > granted should be an error. I agree with the above; in fact it's a
> > > duplicate of a previous complaint.
> > Did we resolve this? Is it a TODO?
> No? No?
> There has been a lot of off-line discussion about how to interpret the
> standard on this point. I'm not even sure we perfectly agreed in the end,
> although our understanding of the issues improved a lot through the
> discussion. As a summary, it is pretty subtle, especially as the standard
> wording is contrived, and postgres does not do what should be done in a
> lot of cases. There are also actual "security" bugs.
> For the TODO, I would suggest something general:
> - fix grant/revoke wrt SQL standard, validate errors, warnings and successes.
Tom, is this done?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
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-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-06-09 15:25:40|
|Subject: Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures |
|Previous:||From: Fabien COELHO||Date: 2004-06-09 14:04:22|
|Subject: Re: BUG #1161: User permissions are kept, even if user is |