Re: "default deny" for roles

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "default deny" for roles
Date: 2012-08-28 17:51:26
Message-ID: 4547.1346176286@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> There are situations where a "default deny" policy is the best fit.

> To that end, I have a modest proposal:

> REVOKE PUBLIC FROM role;

Neither possible nor sensible. PUBLIC means everybody, and is
implemented in a way that doesn't allow any other meaning.

We pretty much have "default deny" at the other end anyway, in that most
types of objects start out without any permissions granted to PUBLIC.
So I don't think you've made an adequate (or indeed any) case for
needing this, even if it were redesigned into something less screwy.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2012-08-28 18:12:32 Re: "default deny" for roles
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2012-08-28 17:40:28 Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB