On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 12:32 AM Noah Misch <n...@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.gy20...@kenobi.snowman.net). Is this something that needs fixing separately? -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
