"James B. Byrne" <byrn...@harte-lyne.ca> writes:
> If all the elements contained in the standard templates had their
> ownerships changed to that of the owner of the new database then my
> problem would never have arisen. I do not understand why this is not
> the case. Is there a reason why this is so?
I don't see why you expect that. Should a non-superuser database owner
have the ability to redefine, say, sum(int4)? You might as well just
give him superuser privileges.
In PG's security model, ownership of a database does *not* automatically
confer any privileges with respect to the contained objects. It doesn't
really give much at all except the ability to drop or rename the
database as a whole.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
