Re: Suggestion GRANT ALTER, TRIGGER ON ALTER

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Suggestion GRANT ALTER, TRIGGER ON ALTER
Date: 2003-05-20 18:04:04
Message-ID: 410.1053453844@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Therefore I propose the following two additional permissions on
> TABLEs, VIEWs, and FUNCTIONs:
> GRANT ALTER ON object TO user : allows the user to run ALTER or REPLACE
> statements on the object;
> GRANT DROP ON object TO user : allows the user to DROP the object (obviously a
> permission that could only be used once).

ALTER permission seems reasonable, I'm less convinced that GRANT DROP is
really needed.

> Accompanying these should be an extension of triggers to allow logging, etc.,
> of such activity. Namely:

> CREATE TRIGGER tg_name {BEFORE|AFTER} ALTER ON table
> CREATE TRIGGER tg_name BEFORE DROP ON table

These I do not like. We do not run user triggers in the midst of
catalog operations because they might see inconsistent states of the
system catalogs. (Consider for instance the possibility that a table is
being dropped as part of a cascaded drop, and something it depends on is
already gone. What does the trigger see? Does it still work?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-05-20 18:11:06 Re: Suggestion GRANT ALTER, TRIGGER ON ALTER
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2003-05-20 17:36:00 Re: Heads up: 7.3.3 this Wednesday