Re: role self-revocation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: role self-revocation
Date
Msg-id 0c095133-7dc7-7a11-b773-0318807380db@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: role self-revocation  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: role self-revocation
List pgsql-hackers
On 07.03.22 19:18, Robert Haas wrote:
>> That all said, permissions SHOULD BE strictly additive.  If boss doesn't want to be a member of pg_read_all_files
allowingthem to revoke themself from that role seems like it should be acceptable.  If there is fear in allowing
someoneto revoke (not add) themselves as a member of a different role that suggests we have a design issue in another
featureof the system.  Today, they neither grant nor revoke, and the self-revocation doesn't seem that important to
add.
> I disagree with this on principle, and I also think that's not how it
> works today. On the general principle, I do not see a compelling
> reason why we should have two systems for maintaining groups of users,
> one of which is used for additive things and one of which is used for
> subtractive things.

Do we have subtractive permissions today?




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Time to drop plpython2?
Next
From: Ashutosh Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby