Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050628205513.GR24207@ns.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] Users/Groups -> Roles ("Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Michael Paesold (mpaesold@gmx.at) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: > >If you're considered the owner of an object then you have access to drop > >it already. You have to be a member of the role to which you're > >changing the ownership. That role not having permission to create the > >object in place is an interesting question. That's an issue for SET > >ROLE too, to some extent I think, do you still have your role's > >permissions after you've SET ROLE to another role? > > For me this would be the "natural" way how SET ROLE would behave. This is > unix'ism again, but using setuid to become another user, you loose the > privileges of the old user context. > Therefore SET ROLE should not inherit privileges from the other role. This > seems to be the safes approach. > > Nevertheless, what does the standard say? Hmm, it says there's a stack and that the thing on top is what's currently used, so it sounds like it would drop the privs too, but imv it's not entirely clear. > >If not then you'd > >have to grant CREATE on the schema to the role in order to create > >objects owned by that role, and I don't think that's necessairly > >something you'd want to do. > > Right, that's an issue. But since the new role will be the *owner* of the > object, it *should* really have create-privileges in that schema. So the > above way seems to be correct anyway. I'm not entirely sure that you'd necessairly want the role to have create privileges on the schema even when it owns things in the schema but the more I think about it that doesn't seem all that unreasonable either. I don't think it'd be very difficult to add such a check to the ALTER OWNER code too though. In general, and perhaps as a unix'ism to some extent, I don't particularly like having to su to people. To get all the other permissions which the role has you don't have to 'su' currently, and personally I like that and think that's correct for a role-based environment (unlike unix where you have users and groups). Thanks, Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: