On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Sanket Mehta < sanket.me...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Hi Dave, > > Below is my understanding of this issue: > > In ALTER DEFAULT PRIVLEGES statement, "FOR ROLE <target_name> "part is > missing. > That's what Erwin has reported, yes. > > as per postgresql documentation target_name should follow below rule: > > target_name: > The name of an existing role of which the current role is a member. If FOR > ROLE is omitted, the current role is assumed. > > So target_name should be owner of this schema which is "foo". > I don't think the owner has anything to do with it. It says the name of an existing role (of which the current role is a member), or the current role if unspecified. > > > Please let me know if I am right in my understanding or something is > missing. > > > > Regards, > Sanket Mehta > Sr Software engineer > Enterprisedb > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Sanket Mehta < > sanket.me...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> Hi Dave, >> >> Sure I will look into it and get back. >> >> Regards, >> Sanket Mehta >> Sr Software engineer >> Enterprisedb >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> >>> Sanket - can you take a look at this when you get a minute please? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Erwin Brandstetter <brsaw...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > This bug has not been addressed in pgAdmin 1.22.0, yet. >>> > >>> > If I run this as user postgres: >>> > >>> > ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES FOR ROLE foo IN SCHEMA test >>> > GRANT SELECT ON TABLES >>> > TO bar; >>> > >>> > Then the SQL pane says (still as user postgres): >>> > >>> > ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA test >>> > GRANT SELECT ON TABLES >>> > TO bar; >>> > >>> > Which is incorrect and misleading. >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > >>> > Erwin >>> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Erwin Brandstetter < >>> brsaw...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> The display of ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES statements can be incorrect. >>> >> >>> >> I reported this bug in 2013, but it seems like it never got through: >>> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/528c2d00.6010...@falter.at >>> >> >>> >> Details, with steps to reproduce: >>> >> https://redmine.postgresql.org/issues/694 >>> >> >>> >> Just tested with version 1.20 again and the situation seems unchanged. >>> >> >>> >> Regards >>> >> Erwin >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Page >>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >>> Twitter: @pgsnake >>> >>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >>> >> >> > -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
