Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobUcuRsYDzHJ3VMmgE6V6dZi2pujY4p269EpJT7zYrS2w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 3:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Maybe.  What I was pointing out is that this is SQL-standard syntax
> and there are SQL-standard semantics that it ought to be implementing.
> Probably those semantics match what you describe here, but we ought
> to dive into the spec and make sure before we spend a lot of effort.
> It's not quite clear to me whether the spec defines any particular
> unique key (identity) for the set of role authorizations.

I sort of thought http://postgr.es/m/3981966.1646429663@sss.pgh.pa.us
constituted a completed investigation of this sort. No?

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: replacing role-level NOINHERIT with a grant-level option
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_auth_members.grantor is bunk