Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 3:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Maybe. What I was pointing out is that this is SQL-standard syntax
>> and there are SQL-standard semantics that it ought to be implementing.
>> Probably those semantics match what you describe here, but we ought
>> to dive into the spec and make sure before we spend a lot of effort.
>> It's not quite clear to me whether the spec defines any particular
>> unique key (identity) for the set of role authorizations.
> I sort of thought http://postgr.es/m/3981966.1646429663@sss.pgh.pa.us
> constituted a completed investigation of this sort. No?
I didn't think so. It's clear that the spec expects us to track the
grantor, but I didn't chase down what it expects us to *do* with that
information, nor what it thinks the rules are for merging multiple
authorizations.
regards, tom lane
