| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |
| Date: | 2009-07-07 17:10:13 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0907071010v71e2bafam6d5fc6ae56e2fed5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> (I'm sure we can do something intelligent with privileges that don't
>> apply to all object types rather than just fail. e.g. UPDATE privilege
>> should be same as USAGE on a sequence.)
>
> Anything you do in that line will be an ugly kluge, and will tend to
> encourage insecure over-granting of privileges (ie GRANT ALL ON ALL
> OBJECTS ... what's the point of using permissions at all then?)
That seems a bit pessimistic. While I disagree with Simon's rule I
think you can get plenty of mileage out of a more conservative rule of
just granting the privilege to all objects for which that privilege is
defined. Especially when you consider that we allow listing multiple
privileges in a single command.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-07-07 17:18:06 | Re: Synch Rep: direct transfer of WAL file from the primary to the standby |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-07 16:58:59 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |