Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.58.0406020909300.20582@davis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | ACLs versus ALTER OWNER (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER
Re: ACLs versus ALTER OWNER |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Tom, > [...] > Even more interesting, the superuser can't fix it either, Due to how ACL are defined in SQL, I restate my suggestion that the super user should be able to change ANY right, including the GRANTOR field, with an appropriate syntax, something like: REVOKE ALL ON TABLE foo FROM GRANTOR [USER] alice; The super user must really be a *super* user. > ISTM that reasonable behavior for ALTER OWNER would include doing > surgery on the object's ACL to replace references to the old owner by > references to the new owner. [...] I'm about so submit a fix for "create database" so that ownership and acl would be fixed wrt to the owner of the database. This patch will include a function to switch grantor rights that might be of interest for the above purpose, as it may save you little time. I'll try to send the patch submission this week-end. > I think there are corner cases where the merging might produce > unintuitive results, but it couldn't be as spectacularly bad as > doing nothing is. I agree that these is work to do in the ACL area... As an additionnal suggestion, I noticed in my tests that nothing is really tested in the regression tests. It would be useful to have tests cases of acl with accesses allowed or forbidden, maybe with a systematic and exhaustive approach... It takes time to do that, but I think it would be useful so as to measure what is needed. Have a nice day, -- Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: