On 1/2/24 08:21, Dominique Devienne wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 5:11 PM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johns...@gmail.com <mailto:david.g.johns...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 8:25 AM Dominique Devienne
<ddevie...@gmail.com <mailto:ddevie...@gmail.com>> wrote:
pg_has_role() from
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-info.html
<https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-info.html>
added the 'SET' privilege in v16, and on top of the existing
'MEMBER' and 'USAGE' ones:
Membership no longer does anything by itself.
OK! That's news to me, I must go back to the v16 (?) release notes and
learn more about this.
Both inherit and set capabilities are now individually controlled
permissions related to membership.
Hmmm, what drove this change? (I guess I'm getting back to the rationale
from earlier).
The previous model was not granular enough?
And the new one is as granular as it gets?
It is indeed possible, but not useful, to grant membership but then
disallow both set and inherit permissions.
OK. Yet another thing I'll need to study.
As I wrote earlier, we use ROLEs extensively, some INHERIT and others
NOT INHERIT,
to map an existing C/C++ enforce security model in mid-tier services, to
a ROLE/GRANT-based
one enforced by PostgreSQL itself, thus understanding why these changes
were made in v16 matters to me a lot.
If you want the rationale see:
https://rhaas.blogspot.com/2023/01/surviving-without-superuser-coming-to.html
Thanks, --DD
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
