On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> > On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 15:29 +0200, Patrick Stählin wrote:
> > > I noticed that we don't document that you need to own the object being
> > > modified by SECURITY LABEL.
>
> Yeah, clearly a documentation oversight.
>
> > Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you have to be a member of the owning role?
> > But perhaps that would be complicated enough to confuse many users.
> > In general, +1 for documenting that.
>
> Our standard boilerplate for this is, eg,
>
> You must own the table to use <command>ALTER TABLE</command>.
>
> I don't see a reason to do it differently here.
Objection withdrawn.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe