Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE
Date
Msg-id Y5k4flnY0tkSobeo@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:45:53AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Seems like a good idea but I'm not sure about this hunk:
>
>   TailMatches("GRANT|REVOKE", "ALTER", "SYSTEM") ||
> - TailMatches("REVOKE", "GRANT", "OPTION", "FOR", "ALTER", "SYSTEM"))
> + TailMatches("REVOKE", "GRANT", "OPTION", "FOR", "ALTER", "SYSTEM") ||
> + TailMatches("REVOKE", "GRANT", "OPTION", "FOR", "SET"))
>
> That might be a correct change for other reasons, but it doesn't seem
> related to this patch. The rest looks good.

(Forgot to press "Send" a few days ago..)

Hmm, right, I see your point.  I have just moved that to reorder the
terms alphabetically, but moving the check on REVOKE GRANT OPTION FOR
SET is not mandatory.  I have moved it back in its previous
position, leading to less noise in the diffs, and applied the rest as
of 9d0cf57.
Thanks!
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Refactor SCRAM code to dynamically handle hash type and key length
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Rework confusing permissions for LOCK TABLE