| 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>, 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: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk |
| Date: | 2022-06-02 19:40:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobUcuRsYDzHJ3VMmgE6V6dZi2pujY4p269EpJT7zYrS2w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 3:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Maybe. What I was pointing out is that this is SQL-standard syntax
> and there are SQL-standard semantics that it ought to be implementing.
> Probably those semantics match what you describe here, but we ought
> to dive into the spec and make sure before we spend a lot of effort.
> It's not quite clear to me whether the spec defines any particular
> unique key (identity) for the set of role authorizations.
I sort of thought http://postgr.es/m/3981966.1646429663@sss.pgh.pa.us
constituted a completed investigation of this sort. No?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-06-02 19:50:58 | Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-06-02 19:37:34 | Re: replacing role-level NOINHERIT with a grant-level option |