Re: Port Reports: UnixWare/Failure/Priviledge Test - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Port Reports: UnixWare/Failure/Priviledge Test
Date
Msg-id 20979.1067642201@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Port Reports: UnixWare/Failure/Priviledge Test  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> nothing happens, because the revoke is implicitly assumed to mean
>> "revoke whatever privileges I granted", and Larry's superuser hasn't
>> granted any.  The public privileges on language SQL were granted by
>> user postgres, and they remain in force.  So the later CREATE FUNCTION
>> that the test expects to fail, succeeds.
>> 
>> Is this a bug, or is it correct-per-spec behavior?

> It's correct.

After chewing on it further, I decided that the spec is unable to
provide any useful guidance, because it hasn't got the concept of
superuser.  It is however clear that having superusers generate their
own grants to someone else's object is not within the privilege model of
the spec.  I think the solution I applied this afternoon (pretend that
superusers are the object owner for GRANT/REVOKE purposes) is a
reasonable answer.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Port Reports: UnixWare/Failure/Priviledge Test
Next
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: 7.4RC1 planned for Monday