From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | François Beausoleil <francois(at)teksol(dot)info> |
Cc: | Forums postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: User postgres unable to revoke privileges? |
Date: | 2013-06-09 19:35:23 |
Message-ID: | 28879.1370806523@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Beausoleil?= <francois(at)teksol(dot)info> writes:
> Le 2013-06-06 17:59, Tom Lane a crit :
>> Note where the fine manual says:
>>
>> schema_name
>> The name of an existing schema. Each target_role must have CREATE privileges for each specified schema.
>>
>> There was some debate previously about whether that restriction was a
>> good idea at all; and given this example, it seems like we definitely
>> shouldn't require it during a REVOKE.
> I may not have read that section carefully enough. I'll try again, by adding postgres back with create privileges on the public schema.
FYI, after some further discussion on pgsql-hackers we've decided to
drop this permission check altogether. Future PG releases won't behave
this way, so there won't be any ordering dependency between doing ALTER
DEFAULT PRIVILEGES and doing GRANT/REVOKE CREATE ON SCHEMA.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Renner | 2013-06-09 21:15:17 | multilib environment with postgresql92 from CentOS-repos? (9.2.4) |
Previous Message | David Johnston | 2013-06-09 16:47:54 | Re: Postgresql - Currval Vs Session Pool |