Обсуждение: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix two bugs in change_owner_recurse_to_sequences:
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix two bugs in change_owner_recurse_to_sequences:
От
Christopher Kings-Lynne
Дата:
> Fix two bugs in change_owner_recurse_to_sequences: it was grabbing an > overly strong lock on pg_depend, and it wasn't closing the rel when done. > The latter bug was masked by the ResourceOwner code, which is something > that should be changed. I assume that this behaviour makes change owner on a table change owner of serial sequences? Should we perhaps also propagate grant insert on a table to grant select, update on dependent serial sequences? Chris
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> I assume that this behaviour makes change owner on a table change owner
> of serial sequences?
Yeah.
> Should we perhaps also propagate grant insert on a table to grant
> select, update on dependent serial sequences?
Doesn't really follow. That code is maintaining an invariant: the owner
of a table owns the associated indexes, toast table, sequences, etc.
There's no system-wide assumption that sequence privileges track table
privileges.
regards, tom lane
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix two bugs in change_owner_recurse_to_sequences: it was
От
Michael Fuhr
Дата:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:35:20AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: > > Should we perhaps also propagate grant insert on a table to grant > > select, update on dependent serial sequences? > > Doesn't really follow. That code is maintaining an invariant: the owner > of a table owns the associated indexes, toast table, sequences, etc. > There's no system-wide assumption that sequence privileges track table > privileges. I brought this up a few months ago. Tom, weren't your objections based more on implementation concerns than on whether the idea itself had merit? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-10/msg00511.php -- Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> I brought this up a few months ago. Tom, weren't your objections
> based more on implementation concerns than on whether the idea
> itself had merit?
No, my point was that making implicit sequences work transparently
requires more thought than this. I'd like to see a fairly complete
plan put forward before we start installing random hacks on permissions.
regards, tom lane