On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Tom, * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > * David G. Johnston (david.g.johnston@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Not sure if this is what you mean but there is no concept of "negative > >> state" in the permissions system. Everything starts out with no > >> permissions. Grant adds permissions and revoke un-adds granted > >> permissions. Revoking something that doesn't exist is either a no-op or a > >> warning depending on the context - either way its doesn't setup a > >> "forbidden" state for the permission. > > > This isn't entirely correct. Functions are the classic example where > > EXECUTE to PUBLIC is part of the default and the "negative" state of > > having a function where EXECUTE is REVOKE'd from PUBLIC is entirely > > reasonable and even common. > > FWIW, I thought David's description was fine. The fact that the initial > state of an object typically includes some positive grants doesn't change > the fact that there's no such thing as a negative grant. In particular, > if there is a GRANT TO PUBLIC, no amount of revoking that privilege from > individual users will have any effect, because the public grant is still > there.
What I was particularly picking up on was the comment that "Everything starts out with no permissions" which implied, at least to me, the idea that no one has any rights on an object until those rights are GRANT'd, which isn't correct, as I described.
I think its more helpful to say "there are no inherent permissions" and have someone ask "then why can I execute this function" and respond "because the system places every user in to a group called PUBLIC which (like all roles/groups) has a set of granted inheritable permissions; and by default it gets ... on all newly created ...;". And, no, you unfortunately cannot remove a user from the PUBLIC group. You can revoke the permissions granted to PUBLIC by executing using REVOKE ... FROM PUBLIC.
Basically, you force the learner to confront/incorporate how the default/PUBLIC privilege defaults system is configured to enhance the usability of a "deny all first" based permission system. Starting from a point of "users have these defaults" obscures that fact and leads to questions like this - which as I said I had myself way back when. Starting from the deny-all beginning was an "ah-ha! moment for me".
