Re: Curious (mis)behavior of access rights

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Curious (mis)behavior of access rights
Date: 2001-06-04 23:58:26
Message-ID: 7630.991699106@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
>> The only downside of this is that we'd lose the "feature" of being able
>> to revoke from a particular user a right that is available via PUBLIC to
>> everyone else.

> Could we add additional privlideges that explicitly restrict a user?
> Perhaps negative permissions like -x -r etc... This would override group
> and public permissions and could be set via revoke. What does the SQL Spec
> say the behaviour should be when group and user permissions are in conflict?

AFAICS the SQL spec's notion of REVOKE is the same as ours: it removes
a previously granted privilege bit. There is no concept of negative
privilege, and I can't say that I want to add one ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2001-06-05 01:42:38 Question about inheritance
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-04 23:25:54 Re: Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION