On 2/18/17 18:06, Stephen Frost wrote: > I'm not convinced that it really makes sense to have PUBLICATION of a > table be independent from the rights an owner of a table has. We don't > allow other ALTER commands on objects based on GRANT'able rights, in > general, so I'm not really sure that it makes sense to do so here.
The REFERENCES and TRIGGER privileges are very similar in principle. > The downside of adding these privileges is that we're burning through > the last few bits in the ACLMASK for a privilege that doesn't really > seem like it's something that would be GRANT'd in general usage. I don't see any reason why we couldn't increase the size of AclMode if it becomes necessary. > I'm certainly all for removing the need for users to be the superuser > for such commands, just not sure that they should be GRANT'able > privileges instead of privileges which the owner of the relation or > database has. Then you couldn't set up a replication structure involving tables owned by different users without resorting to blunt instruments like having everything owned by the same user or using superusers. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers