|From:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, marti(at)juffo(dot)org, rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: alter user/role CURRENT_USER|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
At Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:12:25 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <20150430201225(dot)GV4369(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
> Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > Thank you for completing this and very sorry not to respond these
> > days.
> > I understood that it is committed after I noticed that rebasing
> > my code failed..
> You'd do well to check your email, I guess :-)
Yeah, I agree with you since I noticed that before I read the
mail mentioning that. I should be more carefull:( Sorry to bother
you and thank you for your kindness.
> > | =# alter role current_user rename to "PubLic";
> > | ERROR: CURRENT_USER cannot be used as a role name
> > | LINE 1: alter role current_user rename to "PubLic";
> > | ^
> > The error message sounds somewhat different from the intention. I
> > think the following message would be clearer.
> > | ERROR: CURRENT_USER cannot be used as a role name here
> Okay, changed.
> > ====
> > The document sql-altergroup.html says
> > | ALTER GROUP role_specification ADD USER user_name [, ... ]
> > But current_user is also usable in user_name list. So the doc
> > should be as following, but it would not be necessary to be fixed
> > because it is an obsolete commnand..
> > | ALTER GROUP role_specification ADD USER role_specification [, ... ]
> Yeah, EDONTCARE.
> > "ALTER GROUP role_spec ADD/DROP USER role_spec" is naturally
> > denied so I think no additional description is needed.
> > ====
> > sql-alterpolicy.html
> > "ALTER POLICY name ON table_name TO" also accepts current_user
> > and so as the role to which the policy applies.
> > # As a different topic, the syntax "ALTER POLICY <pname> ON
> > # <tname> TO <user>" looks a bit wired, it might be better be to
> > # be "ON <tname> APPLY TO <user>" but I shouldn't try to fix it
> > # since it is a long standing syntax..
> Yeah, it's a bit strange. Not a strong opinion. Maybe you should raise
> it as a separate thread.
> > ====
> > sql-createtablespace.html
> > sql-drop-owned.html, sql-reassign-owned.html
Thank you applying the changes above.
> > ======
> > sql-grant.html, sql-revoke.html,
> > "GRANT <roles> TO <roles>" and "REVOKE <roles> FROM <roles>" are
> > the modern equivalents of the deprecated syntaxes "ALTER <roles>
> > ADD USER <roles>" and "ALTER <roles> DROP USER <roles>"
> > respectively. But the current parser infrastructure doesn't allow
> > coexistence of the two following syntaxes but I couldn't find the
> > way to their coexistence.
> I decided to leave this out. I think we should consider it as a new
> patch for 9.6; these changes aren't as clear-cut as the rest of your
> patch. I didn't want to have to research the ecpg changes.
Ok, it sounds fair enough.
NTT Open Source Software Center
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2015-05-01 06:47:25||Race condition when starting and stopping test server in TestLib.pm?|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2015-05-01 06:23:44||Re: Make more portable TAP tests of initdb|