Re: role self-revocation
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: role self-revocation |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 929258.1647016476@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: role self-revocation (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: role self-revocation
Re: role self-revocation |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> If we implement the link between the creating role and the created
> role as role ownership, then we are surely just going to add a
> rolowner column to pg_authid, and when the role is owned by nobody, I
> think we should always just store a valid OID in it, rather than
> sometimes storing 0. It just seems simpler. Any time we would store 0,
> store the bootstrap superuser's pg_authid.oid value instead. That way
> the OID is always valid, which probably lets us get by with fewer
> special cases in the code.
+1.
Note that either case would also involve making entries in pg_shdepend;
although for the case of roles owned by/granted to the bootstrap
superuser, we could omit those on the usual grounds that we don't need
to record dependencies on pinned objects.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: