| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Merge pg_shadow && pg_group -- UNTESTED |
| Date: | 2005-01-24 16:24:59 |
| Message-ID: | 200501241724.59924.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Stephen Frost wrote:
> The other difference would seem to be that "user identifiers" can't
> be granted to users whereas "role identifiers" can be. Following
> this, "rolmembers" must be NULL if rolcanlogin is true, no? That
> breaks if roles can log in though. Or should we just allow granting
> of "user identifiers" to other users- but if we do should the user be
> permitted to do that?
If he has admin option on his own role, sure. But I suppose by default
we wouldn't.
One use case I see is if someone goes on vacation he can temporarily
grant the privileges held by his user account to others without
actually giving out the login data.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-01-24 16:27:28 | Re: Extending System Views: proposal for 8.1/8.2 |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2005-01-24 16:12:49 | Re: Shortcut for defining triggers |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-01-24 21:01:25 | Fix for SHGetSpecialFolderPath |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2005-01-24 15:28:09 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |