Re: Proposal: two new role attributes and/or capabilities?

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: José Luis Tallón <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>
Cc: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: two new role attributes and/or capabilities?
Date: 2014-12-23 19:05:14
Message-ID: 20141223190514.GO3062@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* José Luis Tallón (jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net) wrote:
> On 12/23/2014 07:01 PM, David G Johnston wrote:
> >[snip]
> >So you want to say:
> >
> >GRANT IMPERSONATE TO bouncer; --covers the "ALL" requirement
> >
> >instead of
> >
> >GRANT victim1 TO bouncer;
> >GRANT victim2 TO bouncer;
> >etc...
> >
> >-- these would still be used to cover the "limited users" requirement
> >?
>
> |GRANT IMPERSONATE ON actual_role TO login_role|
>
> would actually get us closer to how some other databases do, now
> that I think of it. This could be just some syntactic sugar.
> Might definitively ease migrations, if nothing else.

Uh, how is this different from GRANT actual_role TO login_role, with use
of noinherit..?

THanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-12-23 19:11:08 Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.10
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-12-23 19:04:20 Re: Proposal: two new role attributes and/or capabilities?