Re: Tying an object's ownership to datdba

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:32 AM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> [v2]

Hi Noah,

In the refactoring patch, there is a lingering comment reference to
roles_has_privs_of(). Aside from that, it looks good to me. A possible
thing to consider is an assert that is_admin is not null where we expect
that.

The database owner role patch looks good as well.

> I ended up blocking DDL that creates role memberships involving the new
role;
> see reasons in user.c comments.  Lifting those restrictions looked
feasible,
> but it was inessential to the mission, and avoiding unintended
consequences
> would have been tricky.  Views "information_schema.enabled_roles" and
> "information_schema.applicable_roles" list any implicit membership in
> pg_database_owner, but pg_catalog.pg_group and psql \dgS do not.  If this
> leads any reviewer to look closely at applicable_roles, note that its
behavior
> doesn't match its documentation
> (https://postgr.es/m/flat/20060728170615.GY20016@kenobi.snowman.net).

Is this something that needs fixing separately?

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com