> I could also see a potential gap in such approach. Specifically, I
> could see a case were there are two separate roles, one that is
> entrusted with defining the policies but not able to create/modify
> tables, and one with the opposite capability (I understand this to be
> a fairly common use-case, at least at a system level). Since you
> can't GRANT 'alter' rights to the table, then obviously the policy
> definer would have to either be the owner of the table or a member of
> the role that owns it, right? Given that, if by definition the policy
> definer is not allowed to do anything other than define policies, then
> obviously putting such a role in the table owners group would allow it
> to do much more, correct?
Actually, disregard, I forgot about "You must be the owner of a table
to create or change policies for it." So that would obviously negate
my concern.
-Adam
--
Adam Brightwell - adam.brightwell@crunchydatasolutions.com
Database Engineer - www.crunchydatasolutions.com
