| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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: | 2009-06-30 13:12:54 | 
| Message-ID: | 20090630131254.GC8417@yugib.highrise.ca | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
* Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> [090630 09:08]:
>
>
> Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
>>
>> *especially* if those grants remain "by reference", i.e. If I change the
>> GRANTS/REVOKES on sensitive_table, those are automatically "apply" to all
>> tables created with the "WITH GRANTS LIKE sensitive_table"...
>>
>>
>>   
>
> Isn't that exactly what Tom is objecting to, namely that the permissions  
> of an object would not be contained entirely in catalog entry for the  
> object itself?
Well, it depends on how it's done... If one of the permissions on an
object you can assign is "look at $X", the you don't get the "hidden
permissions" problem.  The object itself still contains everything you
need to "trace" the permissions of an object...
I have no idea if it's something that even half-aligns with the internal
permission model/code...
a.
-- 
Aidan Van Dyk                                             Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca                                       command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/                                   work like a slave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-06-30 13:26:23 | Re: use of pg_stat_database | 
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-06-30 13:11:39 | Re: 8.5 development schedule |