Re: Why is_admin_of_role() use ROLERECURSE_MEMBERS rather than ROLERECURSE_PRIVS? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From cca5507
Subject Re: Why is_admin_of_role() use ROLERECURSE_MEMBERS rather than ROLERECURSE_PRIVS?
Date
Msg-id tencent_F9FE41981D5EE851E14FAD4D8AA08C0F5E06@qq.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Why is_admin_of_role() use ROLERECURSE_MEMBERS rather thanROLERECURSE_PRIVS?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> I'm pretty strongly disinclined to change the meaning of
> is_admin_of_role() in released code. That affects more than this call
> site. When this code was under development, one of the use cases that
> was booted was a user management bot who should be able to run ALTER
> ROLE but should not automatically exercise the privilege of any
> created roles. If we standardize on ROLERECURSE_PRIVS, that use case
> doesn't work any more. You now have to inherit a role's privileges or
> AlterRole() will fail.

This use case makes sense to me.

> One idea could be that non-membership changes to roles continue to
> work as they do today, but membership changes use ROLERECURSE_PRIVS.
> So we'd have is_admin_of_role() and inherits_admin_privs_for_role()
> and be careful to use the right one in each case. This seems a little
> weird, but I'm not sure what would be better.

Attach a patch done like this.

--
Regards,
ChangAo Chen

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Preserve replication origin OIDs in pg_upgrade
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: tuple radix sort