Re: Copying Permissions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Copying Permissions
Date: 2016-11-09 18:35:03
Message-ID: 22878.1478716503@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
>> Second, as always, what's the syntax going to actually be? I don't
>> think GRANT SAME PERMISSIONS is going to work out too well in the
>> parser, and it seems a bit grotty to me anyway. I do think this should
>> be associated with GRANT rather than ALTER TABLE- GRANT is what we use
>> for managing privileges on an object.

> One thing to think about is that GRANT sort of implies adding
> privileges, but this operation would both add and remove privileges as
> necessary.

Other things to think about:

1. If you can GRANT x, that generally implies that you can REVOKE x.
What would REVOKE SAME PERMISSIONS mean?

2. The GRANT/REVOKE syntax is largely governed by the SQL standard.
We risk getting boxed in by picking something that will conflict
with future spec extensions in this area.

On the whole, I suspect some sort of "ALTER TABLE x COPY PERMISSIONS
FROM y" syntax would be better.

BTW, please specify what the grantor of the resulting permissions
would be. I rather doubt that it should involve blindly copying
the source ACL if the user doing the COPY is not the original
grantor --- that feels way too much like a security problem
waiting to happen.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Corey Huinker 2016-11-09 19:54:52 Re: Copying Permissions
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-11-09 18:29:32 Re: Unlogged tables cleanup