| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | richard coleman <rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: database specific pg_read_all_data / pg_write_all_data |
| Date: | 2025-12-10 14:25:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZducmkxoyh_=gvdHJ2Te5rHGctv70BQQsacmgMMjtZRw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wednesday, December 10, 2025, richard coleman <
rcoleman(dot)ascentgl(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I hope that the PostgreSQL devs revisit it in the future with an eye
> towards making it applicable in more situations.
>
There are setups where roles can access multiple databases and in some of
those they have read/write all privileges and in others they do not?
Fundamentally making group-role memberships per-database is a fundamental
change that seems quite unappealing to attempt without a solid use case
that it will enable. iMO you’ve claims here do not establish a solid use
case - they are lacking convincing details. That said, the project is open
source - you can scratch your own itch. But the model change is still a
complexity hill to overcome.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2025-12-10 14:45:27 | Re: database specific pg_read_all_data / pg_write_all_data |
| Previous Message | richard coleman | 2025-12-10 14:10:29 | Re: database specific pg_read_all_data / pg_write_all_data |