Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>> Second, as always, what's the syntax going to actually be? I don't
>> think GRANT SAME PERMISSIONS is going to work out too well in the
>> parser, and it seems a bit grotty to me anyway. I do think this should
>> be associated with GRANT rather than ALTER TABLE- GRANT is what we use
>> for managing privileges on an object.
> One thing to think about is that GRANT sort of implies adding
> privileges, but this operation would both add and remove privileges as
> necessary.
Other things to think about:
1. If you can GRANT x, that generally implies that you can REVOKE x.
What would REVOKE SAME PERMISSIONS mean?
2. The GRANT/REVOKE syntax is largely governed by the SQL standard.
We risk getting boxed in by picking something that will conflict
with future spec extensions in this area.
On the whole, I suspect some sort of "ALTER TABLE x COPY PERMISSIONS
FROM y" syntax would be better.
BTW, please specify what the grantor of the resulting permissions
would be. I rather doubt that it should involve blindly copying
the source ACL if the user doing the COPY is not the original
grantor --- that feels way too much like a security problem
waiting to happen.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
