| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier |
| Date: | 2009-06-28 22:03:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20090628220348.GN20436@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* David Fetter (david(at)fetter(dot)org) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not
> > work prospectively. We have no way ATM to store permissions for an
> > object that does not currently exist.
>
> There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions
> changes. Are we restarting them here?
Having default permissions for new objects (something a couple of us are
working towards) would help with this situation some. I don't think the
ground Jeff's proposal would cover is entirely covered by just having
default permissions though.
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-06-28 22:06:30 | Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-06-28 21:57:51 | Re: pre-proposal: permissions made easier |