Greetings,
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > ... and that backs up my position that we are setting up this
> > privilege at the wrong level by using a default role which a superuser must
> > grant independently from DB ownership.
>
> Don't see how this follows. It's somewhat accidental I think that
> the existing behavior is tied to DB ownership. That's just because
> at the time, that's the only sort of privilege we had that seemed
> intermediate between superuser and Joe User. If we were designing
> the behavior today, with default roles already a done deal for
> handing out possibly-dangerous privileges, I think there's no
> question that we'd be setting up this privilege as a default role
> rather than tying it to DB ownership. We don't make DB ownership
> a prerequisite to creating other sorts of functions, yet other
> functions can be just as dangerous in some cases as C functions.
I suppose I'll just have to say that I disagree. I see a lot of value
in having a level between superuser and Joe User, and DB owner looks
pretty natural as exactly that, particularly for creating database-level
objects like extensions.
If anything, I tend to think we need more levels, not less- like a level
that's "cluster owner" or something along those lines, that's also
independent from "superuser" but would allow creating of cluster-level
objects like databases and roles (with the right to then GRANT the
ability to create those objects to other roles, if they wish).
I don't really see default roles as a better alternative to a privilege
hierarchy, but rather as a way for controlling access to things that
don't really fall into the hierarchy. Maybe for cluster-level things
like what I hint at above they'd be better, but for database-level
objects, where you might decide you want to give a user access to create
something in database X but not in database Y? Doesn't seem to fit very
well to me.
Thanks,
Stephen
