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