| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(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: | 2005-01-26 01:52:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20050126015214.GW10437@ns.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> 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.
Alright. I've thought about this some more and I think I agree with it.
A user doesn't implicitly have all rights on his own oid, but I guess
that wasn't ever really the case anyway (can't give himself superuser
rights, etc). I'll begin working on this soon (possibly as soon as
Thursday evening) unless someone else has comments on it.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-01-26 02:30:23 | Re: Concurrent free-lock |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-01-26 01:10:32 | Re: Patent issues and 8.1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2005-01-26 03:07:54 | Continue transactions after errors in psql |
| Previous Message | Ed L. | 2005-01-25 23:49:15 | dbsize patch |