Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 4:34 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If we are not tracking the grantors of role authorizations,
>> then we are doing it wrong and we ought to fix that.
> So let's talk about how we could fix this. In a vacuum I'd say this is
> just a feature that never got finished and we should rip the whole
> thing out. That is, remove pg_auth_members.grantor entirely and at
> most keep some do-nothing syntax around for backward compatibility.
> However, what Tom is saying in the text quoted above is that we ought
> to have something that actually works, which is more challenging.
> Apparently, the desired behavior here is for this to work like grants
> on non-role objects, where executing "GRANT SELECT ON TABLE s1 TO foo"
> under two different user accounts bar and baz that both have
> permissions to grant that privilege creates two independent grants
> that can be independently revoked.
Maybe. What I was pointing out is that this is SQL-standard syntax
and there are SQL-standard semantics that it ought to be implementing.
Probably those semantics match what you describe here, but we ought
to dive into the spec and make sure before we spend a lot of effort.
It's not quite clear to me whether the spec defines any particular
unique key (identity) for the set of role authorizations.
regards, tom lane
