On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:32 AM Noah Misch <
noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> [v2]
Hi Noah,
In the refactoring patch, there is a lingering comment reference to roles_has_privs_of(). Aside from that, it looks good to me. A possible thing to consider is an assert that is_admin is not null where we expect that.
The database owner role patch looks good as well.
> I ended up blocking DDL that creates role memberships involving the new role;
> see reasons in user.c comments. Lifting those restrictions looked feasible,
> but it was inessential to the mission, and avoiding unintended consequences
> would have been tricky. Views "information_schema.enabled_roles" and
> "information_schema.applicable_roles" list any implicit membership in
> pg_database_owner, but pg_catalog.pg_group and psql \dgS do not. If this
> leads any reviewer to look closely at applicable_roles, note that its behavior
> doesn't match its documentation
> (
https://postgr.es/m/flat/20060728170615.GY20016@kenobi.snowman.net).
Is this something that needs fixing separately?
--
John Naylor
EDB:
http://www.enterprisedb.com
