Re: Raise a WARNING if a REVOKE affects nothing?

That sounds like a good change to me. -- Darren Duncan

Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I'm seeing lots of confusion from people about why:
> 
>     REVOKE CONNECT ON DATABASE foo FROM someuser;
> 
> doesn't stop them connecting. Users seem to struggle to understand that:
> 
> - There's a default GRANT to public; and
> - REVOKE removes existing permissions, it doesn't add deny rules
> 
> It'd really help if REVOKE consistently raised warnings when it didn't 
> actually revoke anything.
> 
> Even better, a special case for REVOKEs on objects that only have owner 
> and public permissions could say:
> 
> WARNING: REVOKE didn't remove any permissions for user <blah>. This 
> <table/db/whatever>
> has default permissions, so there were no GRANTs for user <blah> to 
> revoke. See the documentation
> for REVOKE for more information.
> 
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Craig Ringer
> 
>