On 02/14/20 18:43, Tom Lane wrote: > I suppose it could be argued that that's a bug in the interpretation > of role membership: arguably, if you're a member of some superuser > role, that ought to give you membership in anything else. IOW, a > superuser's implicit membership in every role isn't transitive, > and maybe it should be. But I'm not sure that I want to change that; > it feels like doing so might have surprising side-effects.
I have a tendency to create roles like postgres_assumable or dba_assumable, which are themselves members of the indicated roles, but without rolinherit, and then grant those to my own role. That way in my day to day faffing about, I don't get to make superuser-powered mistakes, but I can 'set role postgres' when needed. Would it make sense for a proposed transitive superuser-membership- in-everything also to stop at a role without rolinherit? Clearly it would just add one extra step to 'set role anybody', but sometimes one extra step inspires a useful extra moment of thought. Regards, -Chap
