While creating roles using PgAdmin, there is a check box stating "Inherits rights from parent roles" if you do not check that option that implicitly means you need NOINHERIT. If you create a role using CL, and do not mention anything, then INHERIT is the default option.
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] permissions on tablesDate: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:30:31 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Thanks for your response. I did not explicitly use NOINHERIT (in fact I used the PgAdmin v1.6.3 New Login Role and new Group Role wizard to create the user). I see that NOINHERIT is specified when I look at the SQL pane in PgAdmin for that login role. I’ll remove and recreate that user allowing permissions to inherit from parent roles. It seems to me that one would usually (not always) want user roles to inherit privileges from parent roles (including group roles). Do you know why PgAdmin defaults to NOINHERIT on user roles? Please use PgAdmin Support ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list for PgAdmin related queries. Thanks, again. Gord From: Vishal Arora [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 4:33 AMTo: Hyatt, Gordon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: RE: [ADMIN] permissions on tables Subject: [ADMIN] permissions on tablesDate: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:26:27 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Forgive me if this is not the correct list for this type of question. I thought I understood PostgreSQL’s privileges well enough, but I’m running into problems, so I must misunderstand something. I have a website that I’m adding functionality to, and therefore need to expand the database. The database already contains around 30 populated tables with 1 group role (group_reader) and 1 user role (user_reader). To all existing tables, I’d assigned PUBLIC and group_reader SELECT privilege. Everything is working fine. Now, I created one more group role (called group_writer) and another user role (user_writer) and make sure that user_writer is a member of group_writer. Did you use NOINHERIT while creating the user role? if yes, please create it without this parameter. I then explicitly grant group_writer SELECT privilege on all tables. (I know this is technically not necessary as PUBLIC has already been assigned SELECT privilege.) I created (tbl_batch) and deliberately decided to not grant PUBLIC access to this table. Instead, I granted group_writer SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE privileges to this table. Looking at the ACL list for this table confirms this. When I attempt to access this table as user_writer, I’m denied access. I’m access this through Tomcat and verifying the connected user as user_writer. I shouldn’t have to grant the PUBLIC group full access to this table as well, should I? >From what I understand of the manual, a user’s privileges are the SUM of the >privileges of all groups of which that user is a member. Therefore, >user_writer’s privileges should be {SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE} from >group_writer plus {} from PUBLIC, which should yield {SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, >DELETE}. BTW, I’m running 8.2.6 on WinXP x64 SP2. Thanks, Gord Detailed profiles 4 marriage! Only at Shaadi.com Try it! Post free auto ads on Yello Classifieds now! Try it now! _________________________________________________________________ Tried the new MSN Messenger? It’s cool! Download now. http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in
