Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs

From: Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Petr Jelinek <pjmodos(at)pjmodos(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs
Date: 2009-07-17 08:55:24
Message-ID: a301bfd90907170155l19552d6dj33cddf18553ef232@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

>>
>
> No, DefaultACLs applies to objects created in the future while GRANT ON ALL
> affects existing objects.

I see.

> DefaultACLs is more important functionality so it should probably take
> precedence in review process.
>
> There is however one thing that needs some attention. Both patches add
> distinction between VIEW and TABLE objects for acls into parser and they
> both do it differently. GRANT ON ALL works by adding ACL_OBJECT_VIEW and
> tracks that object type in code (that was my original method in both
> patches) while DefaultACLs uses method suggested by Stephen Frost which is
> creating new enum with relation, view, function and sequence members (those
> are object types for which both DefaultACLs and GRANT ON ALL are
> applicable). The second method has advantage of minimal changes to existing
> code.

I briefly looked at the DefaultACLs patch. Can you not re-use the
GrantStmt structure for the defaults purpose too? You might have to
introduce an "is_default" boolean similar to the "is_schema" boolean
that you have added in the "GRANT ON ALL" patch. If you think you can
re-use the GrantStmt structure, then we might as well stick with the
existing object type code and not add the enums in the DefaultACLs
patch too..

Regards,
Nikhils
--
http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2009-07-17 09:15:11 Re: Synch Rep for CommitFest 2009-07
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2009-07-17 08:41:46 Re: Review: support for multiplexing SIGUSR1