Re: Curious (mis)behavior of access rights - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Matthew T. O'Connor
Subject Re: Curious (mis)behavior of access rights
Date
Msg-id 001b01c0ed4c$5e18e0c0$040a0a0a@ctlno.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Curious (mis)behavior of access rights  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Curious (mis)behavior of access rights  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
> The only downside of this is that we'd lose the "feature" of being able
> to revoke from a particular user a right that is available via PUBLIC to
> everyone else.

Could we add additional privlideges that explicitly restrict a user?
Perhaps negative permissions like -x -r etc...  This would override group
and public permissions and could be set via revoke.  What does the SQL Spec
say the behaviour should be when group and user permissions are in conflict?




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Curious (mis)behavior of access rights
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Re: AW: Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION