Sorry for the delay in the answer but i was busy with 2 projects and a talk...
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's probably reasonable as long as we keep the implicitly > granted rights as narrow as possible. INSERT on the parent table > would normally be hard to use correctly if you can't nextval() the > sequence, so automatically allowing nextval() seems pretty reasonable. > I think the case for granting anything more than that is weak --- > even without considering backwards-compatibility arguments. > ok. at least two more reviewers make questions against the SELECT permission... my point was that if keep INSERT and UPDATE permissions then keep SELECT as well... but let *only* INSERT's seems enough to me... > A fairly important practical problem is whether this will keep pg_dump > from correctly reproducing the state of a database. Assume that someone > did revoke the implicitly-granted rights on the sequence --- would a > dump and reload correctly preserve that state? It'd depend on the order > in which pg_dump issued the GRANTs, and I'm not at all sure pg_dump > could be relied on to get that right. (Even if we fixed it to account > for the issue today, what of older dump scripts?) > good point! a simple test make me think that yes, i will try some complex cases to be sure (actually i think it should be a problem here) > Another issue is the interaction with the planned column-level GRANT > feature. > Although that is a feature we want, is a WIP one... do we stop patches because it can conflict with a project we don't know will be applied soon? In any case, i will review that patch to see where we are on that and to try make those two compatible... > > I thought for a bit about abandoning the proposed implementation and > instead having nextval/currval check at runtime: IOW, if the check for > ACL_USAGE on the sequence fails, look to see if the sequence is "owned" > and if so look to see if the user has ACL_INSERT on the parent table. > (This seems a bit slow but maybe it wouldn't be a problem, or maybe we > could arrange to cache the lookup results.) This would avoid the > "action at a distance" behavior in GRANT and thereby cure both of > the problems mentioned above. However, it would mean that it'd be > impossible to grant INSERT without effectively granting sequence USAGE > --- revoking USAGE on the sequence wouldn't stop anything. Plus, \z on > the sequence would fail to tell you about those implicitly held rights. seems like a hackish... do we want this? comments? i will work on this patch for the next days... -- regards, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. (593) 87171157 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
