"Rod Taylor" <rbt@zort.ca> writes:
> Will we be able to accomplish the equivelent of the below?
I think what you're depicting is the equivalent of a schema owner
dropping a table in his schema, right? Yes, I proposed allowing that,
but not granting the schema owner any other ownership rights over
contained tables. This is analogous to the way that ownership of a Unix
directory lets you rm a contained file ... but not necessarily alter
that file in any way short of rm'ing it.
> Yes, basically what we do now. I'm hoping to add the ability to
> enable a group (ROLES) to have ownership of items as well as users
> when I complete the other tasks I've set before myself.
That could be a good extension, but I think it's orthogonal to the
immediate issue...
regards, tom lane
