Thread: Misleading sentence about default privileges

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/sql-alterdefaultprivileges.html
Description:

In the docs
(https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/sql-alterdefaultprivileges.html) it
states:

> You can change default privileges only for objects that will be created by
yourself or by roles that you are a member of.

Yet, altering the default privileges `for role`'s that I am a member of
(i.e. `target_role` in docs), does not affect privileges granted on objects
created by other members of said role.

Seeing as separating Users (roles with log-in privilege) from Roles
(containing concrete grants, unable to log in) seems a common, and
recommendable pattern, I believe the statement is quite misleading.

For an example of expected behaviour, see this Stack Overflow question:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56237907/why-doesnt-alter-default-privileges-work-as-expected

The only scenario I can think of where the statement makes sense seems quite
foreign to me: 
Scenario: I, say `role_a`, have log-in, and am also a member of another
Role, say `role_b`, which also has login. Only objects created directly by
`role_b` (i.e. not any of its members) are affected.

I suggest adding something like the following to the documentation:

" Note that only object created directly by _*target_role*_ , i.e. not any
of its members, will have privileges granted. "

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 09:07:11AM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> > You can change default privileges only for objects that will be created by
> yourself or by roles that you are a member of.
> 
> Yet, altering the default privileges `for role`'s that I am a member of
> (i.e. `target_role` in docs), does not affect privileges granted on objects
> created by other members of said role.
> 
> Seeing as separating Users (roles with log-in privilege) from Roles
> (containing concrete grants, unable to log in) seems a common, and
> recommendable pattern, I believe the statement is quite misleading.
> 
> For an example of expected behaviour, see this Stack Overflow question:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56237907/why-doesnt-alter-default-privileges-work-as-expected
> 
> The only scenario I can think of where the statement makes sense seems quite
> foreign to me: 
> Scenario: I, say `role_a`, have log-in, and am also a member of another
> Role, say `role_b`, which also has login. Only objects created directly by
> `role_b` (i.e. not any of its members) are affected.
> 
> I suggest adding something like the following to the documentation:
> 
> " Note that only object created directly by _*target_role*_ , i.e. not any
> of its members, will have privileges granted. "

I researched this.  What it is saying is that you can modify the
defaults for your own role, or roles you are a member of.  The defaults
are applied based on the active role at the time you create an object. 
Here is an example run as the postgres user:

    CREATE ROLE demo NOLOGIN;
    
-->    ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES FOR ROLE demo GRANT SELECT ON TABLES TO PUBLIC;
    
    CREATE TABLE test1 (x INTEGER);
    
-->    SET ROLE demo;
    
    CREATE TABLE test2 (x INTEGER);
    \dp test1
                                 Access privileges
     Schema | Name  | Type  | Access privileges | Column privileges |
    Policies
    --------+-------+-------+-------------------+-------------------+----------
    
     public | test1 | table |                   |                   |
    
    \dp test2
                                 Access privileges
     Schema | Name  | Type  | Access privileges | Column privileges |
    Policies
    --------+-------+-------+-------------------+-------------------+----------
    
     public | test2 | table | =r/demo          +|                   |
-->            |       |       | demo=arwdDxt/demo |                   |

I am trying to think of wording that would make this documentation
section clearer, but I can't think of anything.     Maybe the entire
concept of "active role at time of object creation" needs to be
explained more, since there is a lot of focus on owner without the idea
that this is really the active role.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.