On Thu, 2025-06-05 at 11:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Objection withdrawn. Yours, Laurenz Albe
