Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Dear Bruce,
>
> > > > Well, if I issue a "REVOKE" and the rights are not revoked and could never
> > > > have been because I have no right to issue such statement on the object, I
> > > > tend to call this deep absence of success a "failure".
> > >
> > > > If I do the very opposite GRANT, I have a clear "permission denied".
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought you were complaining that revoking rights not previously
> > > granted should be an error. I agree with the above; in fact it's a
> > > duplicate of a previous complaint.
> >
> > Did we resolve this? Is it a TODO?
>
> No? No?
>
> There has been a lot of off-line discussion about how to interpret the
> standard on this point. I'm not even sure we perfectly agreed in the end,
> although our understanding of the issues improved a lot through the
> discussion. As a summary, it is pretty subtle, especially as the standard
> wording is contrived, and postgres does not do what should be done in a
> lot of cases. There are also actual "security" bugs.
>
> For the TODO, I would suggest something general:
>
> - fix grant/revoke wrt SQL standard, validate errors, warnings and successes.
Tom, is this done?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
