| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: role self-revocation |
| Date: | 2022-03-07 20:01:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY8wkrFXw3dPO+NDvqazutHF6x3UQcy-eAjLgxoj8xN=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 2:59 PM Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> This test failure is just a manifestation of the intended change, but assuming we make no other changes, the error message would clearly need to be updated, because it suggests the role should have admin_option on itself, a situation which is not currently supported.
It's been pointed out upthread that this would have undesirable
security implications, because the admin option would be inherited,
and the implicit permission isn't.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2022-03-07 20:03:55 | Re: role self-revocation |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2022-03-07 19:59:54 | Re: role self-revocation |