Re: role self-revocation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Dilger
Subject Re: role self-revocation
Date
Msg-id 599FBB8F-CD41-4E31-9DD3-A93FD99CEC30@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: role self-revocation  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: role self-revocation  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

> On Mar 11, 2022, at 2:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> I do think that’s reasonable … and believe I suggested it about 3 messages ago in this thread. ;)  (step #3 I think
itwas?  Or maybe 4). 

Yes, and you mentioned it to me off-list.

I'm soliciting a more concrete specification for what you are proposing.  To me, that means understanding how the SQL
specbehavior that you champion translates into specific changes.  You specified some of this in steps #1 through #5,
butI'd like a clearer indication of how many of those (#1 alone, both #1 and #2, or what?) constitute a competing idea
tothe idea of role ownership, and greater detail about how each of those steps translate into specific behavior changes
inpostgres.  Your initial five-step email seems to be claiming that #1 by itself is competitive, but to me it seems at
least#1 and #2 would be required. 

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company






pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jacob Champion
Date:
Subject: Re: Kerberos delegation support in libpq and postgres_fdw
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_compression=zstd