Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Not sure if this is good enough or we need to provide some more-obvious
>> way of dealing with it.
> it's strange that a REVOKE doesn't clean what a GRANT did, and DROP
> OWNED BY seems very dangerous (at least if i forgot to make REASSIGN
> OWNED first).
Agreed --- I fixed it so that granting or revoking back to the default
permissions set will remove the entry.
regards, tom lane