Egor,
* Egor Rogov (e.rogov@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Egor Rogov <e.rogov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> >>So, the question: is it a documentation bug (as it seems to me), code bug,
> >>or I missed something?
> >Your analysis looks right to me, but I don't know whether the code or
> >the documentation should be changed. This claim was added by Tom Lane
> >in 2005 in commit 58d214e51fe50b10b4439da6ec263d54c155afbf. It might
> >be worth checking whether the claim was true at that time and later
> >became false, or whether it was never true to begin with.
> >
> As far as I can see, modern revoke syntax for revoking membership in
> a role (along with "admin option") was introduced in commit 7762619
> (by Tom Lane, 2005). Code for handling this command didn't pay
> attention for "restrict/cascade" keywords then, as it does not now.
> Before that, another syntax was in use: alter group groupname drop
> user username [, ...]. It did not include notion of "cascade" at
> all.
> I guess that "revoke role_name from role_name" inherited
> "[cascade|restrict]" section from general revoke command but never
> actually used it. And I see no point in changing this, because role
> membership is somewhat more static than privileges.
> So I would propose the attached fix for documentation.
Have you looked at the SQL spec at all for this..? That's what we
really should be looking at to determine if this is a documentation
issue or a code issue.
I'll take a look in a day or two after I've caught up on other things,
if no one beats me to it.
Thanks!
Stephen