From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: role self-revocation |
Date: | 2022-03-24 17:26:48 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob-b0o5Mk7cKkB1WtTBP+48RVVZdfutpP+eoQDi1beqZQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 1:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > However, it might. And if it does, I think it would be best if
> > removing that exception were the *only* change in this area made by
> > that release.
>
> Good idea, especially since it's getting to be too late to consider
> anything more invasive anyway.
I'd say it's definitely too late at this point.
> > So I propose to commit something like what I posted here:
> > http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmobgeK0JraOwQVPqhSXcfBdFitXSomoebHMMMhmJ4gLonw@mail.gmail.com
>
> +1, although the comments might need some more work. In particular,
> I'm not sure that this bit is well stated:
>
> + * A role cannot have WITH ADMIN OPTION on itself, because that would
> + * imply a membership loop.
>
> We already do consider a role to be a member of itself:
>
> regression=# create role r;
> CREATE ROLE
> regression=# grant r to r;
> ERROR: role "r" is a member of role "r"
> regression=# grant r to r with admin option;
> ERROR: role "r" is a member of role "r"
>
> It might be better to just say "By policy, a role cannot have WITH ADMIN
> OPTION on itself". But if you want to write a defense of that policy,
> this isn't a very good one.
That sentence is present in the current code, along with a bunch of
other sentences, which the patch renders irrelevant. So I just deleted
all of the other stuff and kept the sentence that is still relevant to
the revised code. I think your proposed replacement is an improvement,
but let's be careful not to get sucked into too much of a wordsmithing
exercise in a patch that's here to make a functional change.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-24 17:35:20 | Re: Documenting when to retry on serialization failure |
Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2022-03-24 17:21:33 | Re: shared-memory based stats collector - v66 |