Bump.
Discussion has trailed off here, but I still don't see that we have a
better way forward here than what I proposed on September 30th. Two
people have commented. Nathan said that he wasn't sure this was best
(neither am I) but that he didn't have a better idea either (neither
do I). Stephen proposed decomposing ADMIN OPTION, which is not my
preference, but even if it turns out that we want to pursue that
approach, I do not think it would make sense to bundle that into this
patch, because there isn't enough overlap between that change and this
change to justify that treatment.
If anyone else wants to comment, or if either of those people want to
comment further, please speak up soon. Otherwise, I am going to press
forward with committing this. If we do not, we will continue to have
no way of restricting of SET ROLE, and we will continue to have no way
of preventing the creation of objects owned by predefined roles by
users who have been granted those roles. As far as I am aware, no one
is opposed to those goals, and in fact I think everyone who has
commented thinks that it would be good to do something. If a better
idea than what I've implemented comes along, I'm happy to defer to it,
but I think this is one of those cases in which there probably isn't
any totally satisfying solution, and yet doing nothing is not a
superior alternative.
Thanks,
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com