Re: DROP PRIVILEGES OWNED BY

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DROP PRIVILEGES OWNED BY
Date: 2014-12-17 16:37:01
Message-ID: 5491B12D.7040801@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/15/2014 02:43 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> This week I had a problem where I wanted to drop only the privileges a
> certain role had in the system, while keeping all the objects. I
> couldn't figure out a reasonable way to do that, so I've attached a
> patch for this to this email. Please consider it for inclusion into
> 9.5. The syntax is:
>
> DROP PRIVILEGES OWNED BY role [, ...]
>
> I at some point decided to implement it as a new command instead of
> changing DropOwnedStmt, and I think that might have been a mistake. It
> might have made more sense to instead teach DROP OWNED to accept a
> specification of which things to drop. But the proposal is more
> important than such details, I think.

DROP seems like the wrong verb here. DROP is used for deleting objects,
while REVOKE is used for removing permissions from them. REVOKE already
has something similar:

REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA public FROM heikki;

Following that style, how about making the syntax:

REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON ALL OBJECTS FROM <role>

or just:

REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES FROM <role>;

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Tiikkaja 2014-12-17 16:43:35 Re: DROP PRIVILEGES OWNED BY
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-12-17 16:34:25 Re: [alvherre@2ndquadrant.com: Re: no test programs in contrib]