Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> writes:
> On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 15:29 +0200, Patrick Stählin wrote:
>> I noticed that we don't document that you need to own the object being
>> modified by SECURITY LABEL.
Yeah, clearly a documentation oversight.
> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you have to be a member of the
> owning role?
> But perhaps that would be complicated enough to confuse many users.
> In general, +1 for documenting that.
Our standard boilerplate for this is, eg,
You must own the table to use <command>ALTER TABLE</command>.
I don't see a reason to do it differently here.
regards, tom lane
