| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow CURRENT_ROLE in GRANTED BY |
| Date: | 2020-06-24 18:21:29 |
| Message-ID: | e9571f93-d04f-8357-7191-cc44df4a3a9a@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-06-24 10:12, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 6/24/20 8:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I was checking some loose ends in SQL conformance, when I noticed: We
>> support GRANT role ... GRANTED BY CURRENT_USER, but we don't support
>> CURRENT_ROLE in that place, even though in PostgreSQL they are
>> equivalent. Here is a trivial patch to add that.
>
>
> The only thing that isn't dead-obvious about this patch is the commit
> message says "[PATCH 1/2]". What is in the other part?
Hehe. The second patch is some in-progress work to add the GRANTED BY
clause to the regular GRANT command. More on that perhaps at a later date.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-06-24 18:22:10 | Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-06-24 17:57:31 | Re: should libpq also require TLSv1.2 by default? |