From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
Cc: | "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Schema (namespace) privilege details |
Date: | 2002-04-19 02:08:00 |
Message-ID: | 19641.1019182080@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> writes:
> Will we be able to accomplish the equivelent of the below?
I think what you're depicting is the equivalent of a schema owner
dropping a table in his schema, right? Yes, I proposed allowing that,
but not granting the schema owner any other ownership rights over
contained tables. This is analogous to the way that ownership of a Unix
directory lets you rm a contained file ... but not necessarily alter
that file in any way short of rm'ing it.
> Yes, basically what we do now. I'm hoping to add the ability to
> enable a group (ROLES) to have ownership of items as well as users
> when I complete the other tasks I've set before myself.
That could be a good extension, but I think it's orthogonal to the
immediate issue...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steffen Nielsen | 2002-04-19 02:15:49 | Getting Constrint information..?? |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-04-19 02:07:12 | Re: Schema (namespace) privilege details |