Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE
От | igor levshin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 142af054-c06b-d77a-e362-c229ff0bfc3a@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
идея и её реализация насчёт Параллельного чтения - как вам? Мне показалось, интересно и полезно. Но это, думаю, одноразовая акция. Времени и сил на это довольно много ухлопал, хотя вроде дело нехитрое :) Стоило? 15.11.2022 20:07, Robert Haas пишет: > Bump. > > Discussion has trailed off here, but I still don't see that we have a > better way forward here than what I proposed on September 30th. Two > people have commented. Nathan said that he wasn't sure this was best > (neither am I) but that he didn't have a better idea either (neither > do I). Stephen proposed decomposing ADMIN OPTION, which is not my > preference, but even if it turns out that we want to pursue that > approach, I do not think it would make sense to bundle that into this > patch, because there isn't enough overlap between that change and this > change to justify that treatment. > > If anyone else wants to comment, or if either of those people want to > comment further, please speak up soon. Otherwise, I am going to press > forward with committing this. If we do not, we will continue to have > no way of restricting of SET ROLE, and we will continue to have no way > of preventing the creation of objects owned by predefined roles by > users who have been granted those roles. As far as I am aware, no one > is opposed to those goals, and in fact I think everyone who has > commented thinks that it would be good to do something. If a better > idea than what I've implemented comes along, I'm happy to defer to it, > but I think this is one of those cases in which there probably isn't > any totally satisfying solution, and yet doing nothing is not a > superior alternative. > > Thanks, >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: