Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-08-11T10:48:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote: >> >> So there's no way to see if a particular privilege has been granted to public. ISTM 'public' should be accepted, since you can't use it as a role name anyway... >> >> > It's a bit sticky - you could make that work for >> > has_table_privilege(name, oid, text) or has_table_privilege(name, >> > text, text), but what would you do about the versions whose first >> > argument is an oid? >> >> Nothing. The only reason to use those forms is in a join against >> pg_authid, and the "public" group doesn't have an entry there. > > ISTM this bug should be on the open items list... I don't think this is a bug. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company