"Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Will we be able to accomplish the equivelent of the below?
I think what you're depicting is the equivalent of a schema owner dropping a table in his schema, right? Yes, I proposed allowing that, but not granting the schema owner any other ownership rights over contained tables. This is analogous to the way that ownership of a Unix directory lets you rm a contained file ... but not necessarily alter that file in any way short of rm'ing it. > Yes, basically what we do now. I'm hoping to add the ability to > enable a group (ROLES) to have ownership of items as well as users > when I complete the other tasks I've set before myself. That could be a good extension, but I think it's orthogonal to the immediate issue... regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly