* Merlin Moncure ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >err, what proposal wasn't touching the GRANT syntax at all but rather
>
> right, but the original proposal did:
> # %Allow GRANT/REVOKE permissions to be applied to all schema objects
> with one c
On 1/24/07, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
err, what proposal wasn't touching the GRANT syntax at all but rather
right, but the original proposal did:
# %Allow GRANT/REVOKE permissions to be applied to all schema objects
with one command
which was more or less (with the NEW TABLES fl
* Merlin Moncure ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >when you create them. Table rights almost always follow broad rules
> >so it only natural to integrate that with schemas somehow...but
> >admittedly it is awkward to put it into GRANT (and I've t
On 1/24/07, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
when you create them. Table rights almost always follow broad rules
so it only natural to integrate that with schemas somehow...but
admittedly it is awkward to put it into GRANT (and I've thought alot a
bout.
oops :( what I meant to say her
On 1/24/07, Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure, all the objects in a given schema should be owned by a role which
all the admins of that schema are members of. I really see this as a
sensible step from ACLs since ownership implies additional permissions
(which can't otherwise be grant
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Before discussing "limitations" you should first justify why we need any
> >> such concept at all. It was no part of the original TODO item and I
> >> cannot see any goo
* Jim Nasby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >Hmm. While I agree with the sentiment, Unix does provide for setgid
> >such that objects inherit a specific group on creation. Using
> >roles we
> >don't get that distinction so I don't think comparin
On Jan 23, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
Whoa. You are going to allow people to create objects owned by
someone
else? I don't think so ... most Unix systems have forbidden object
give-away for years, for very good reasons.
Hmm. While I agree with the sentiment, Unix does provide
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Before discussing "limitations" you should first justify why we need any
>> such concept at all. It was no part of the original TODO item and I
>> cannot see any good use for it.
> There are permissions which are
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Whoa. You are going to allow people to create objects owned by someone
> >> else? I don't think so ... most Unix systems have forbidden object
> >> give-away for years,
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> Whoa. You are going to allow people to create objects owned by someone
>> else? I don't think so ... most Unix systems have forbidden object
>> give-away for years, for very good reasons.
> Hmm. While I agree w
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Following up on my reply to Joshua, what I'd like to propose is, for
> > comments and suggestions:
>
> > ALTER SCHEMA name [ [ WITH ] [ DEFAULT ] option [ ... ] ]
>
> > where option can be:
>
> > {
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Following up on my reply to Joshua, what I'd like to propose is, for
> comments and suggestions:
> ALTER SCHEMA name [ [ WITH ] [ DEFAULT ] option [ ... ] ]
> where option can be:
> { GRANT { { SELECT | INSERT | UPDATE | DELETE | RULE | REF
Greetings,
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> It seems unlikely that I'm going to have time at the rate things are
> going but I was hoping to take a whack at default permissions/ownership
> by schema. Kind of a umask-type thing but for schemas instead of roles
> (though I've thought ab
14 matches
Mail list logo
