Re: REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>,
PGSQL Mailing List <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-03-31T17:40:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to >> fear of breaking existing applications, but it's hard to see how >> removal of a permission check could break a working application --- >> especially when the permission check is as hard to trigger as this one. >> How many table owners ever revoke their own REFERENCES permission? > Sure, but that argument cuts both ways. If nobody ever does that, who > will be helped by back-patching this? > I certainly agree that back-patching this change is pretty low risk. > I just don't think it has any real benefits. I think the benefit is reduction of user confusion. Admittedly, since Paul is the first person I can remember ever having complained about it, maybe nobody else is confused. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
For foreign keys, check REFERENCES privilege only on the referenced table.
- 64d4da511c01 10.0 landed