Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege

From: "Nasby, Jim" <JNasby(at)enovafinancial(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
Date: 2010-07-02 15:11:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
>>> So there's no way to see if a particular privilege has been granted to public. ISTM 'public' should be accepted, since you can't use it as a role name anyway...
>> It's a bit sticky - you could make that work for
>> has_table_privilege(name, oid, text) or has_table_privilege(name,
>> text, text), but what would you do about the versions whose first
>> argument is an oid?
> Nothing.  The only reason to use those forms is in a join against
> pg_authid, and the "public" group doesn't have an entry there.

Cool, I'll have CMD come up with a patch.
Jim "Decibel!" Nasby jnasby(at)EnovaFinancial(dot)com
Primary: 512-579-9024     Backup: 512-569-9461

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-02 15:18:08
Subject: Re: Adding regexp_match() function
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-02 15:07:10
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow copydir() to be interrupted.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group