Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> The problem here is not with pg_dump; the problem is that dropping
>> privileges doesn't cascade to dropping objects that are dependent on
>> those privileges. AFAICS the SQL spec requires us to be able to do
>> the latter.
> The spec really requires that?? So basically we have RESTRICT and
> CASCADE on REVOKE?
Well, the spec doesn't have create permissions per se, but they do have
a "usage" right on domains, and they specify that revoking that results
in dropping objects:
7) For every abandoned domain descriptor DO, let S1.DN be the
<domain name> of DO. The following <drop domain statement> is
effectively executed without further Access Rule checking:
DROP DOMAIN S1.DN CASCADE
Similarly, revoking access to tables etc. results in physical changes to
views that reference those tables. So I think the idea is pretty clear.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-06-02 14:44:07|
|Subject: Re: Nested transactions and tuple header info|
|Previous:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 2004-06-02 14:34:56|
|Subject: Re: sync vs. fsync question|