Re: Role membership and DROP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Laurenz Albe
Subject Re: Role membership and DROP
Date
Msg-id 7ea5836d6b11299334e631b514b0d75a57c5cbf6.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Role membership and DROP  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Role membership and DROP  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Role membership and DROP  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 13:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> > On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 13:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 17:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > > It might be worth clarifying this point in section 5.7,
> > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/ddl-priv.html
> > I like your second sentence, but I think that "the right ... is inherent
> > in being the ... owner" is unnecessarily complicated.
> > Removing the "always" and "only" makes the apparent contradiction between
> > the sentences less jarring to me.
> 
> I think it's important to emphasize that this is implicit in object
> ownership.
> 
> Looking at the page again, I notice that there's a para a little further
> down that overlaps quite a bit with what we're discussing here, but it's
> about implicit grant options rather than the right to DROP.  In the
> attached, I reworded that too, and moved it because it's not fully
> intelligible until we've explained grant options.  Thoughts?

I am fine with that.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal- GUC for max dead rows before autovacuum
Next
From: "imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)