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: 2017-03-31T15:29:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> In short, it seems like this statement in the docs is correctly describing >> our code's behavior, but said behavior is wrong and should be changed. >> I'd propose fixing it like that in HEAD; I'm not sure if the back branches >> should also be changed. > Sounds reasonable, but I don't see much advantage to changing it in > the back-branches. Well, it's a SQL-compliance bug, and we often back-patch bug fixes. 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? regards, tom lane
Commits
-
For foreign keys, check REFERENCES privilege only on the referenced table.
- 64d4da511c01 10.0 landed