| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
| Date: | 2005-07-21 19:34:39 |
| Message-ID: | 22187.1121974479@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> BTW, I realized we do not support granting roles to PUBLIC:
>>
>> regression=# create role r;
>> CREATE ROLE
>> regression=# grant r to public;
>> ERROR: role "public" does not exist
>>
>> but as far as I can tell SQL99 expects this to work.
> Indeed, I believe you're correct, sorry about missing that.
However, on second thought I'm not sure that this is sensible anyway.
Consider that every role is implicitly a member of PUBLIC --- so isn't
the above a creation of a circular membership loop, which is (for good
reason) forbidden by the spec?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 19:40:59 | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-07-21 19:28:26 | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-21 19:40:59 | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-07-21 19:28:26 | Re: Roles - SET ROLE Updated |