On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 18:03 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 05:27:19PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Without a major change in the way we do permissions, it will not > > > work prospectively. We have no way ATM to store permissions for an > > > object that does not currently exist. > > > > There have been previous discussions of prospective permissions > > changes. Are we restarting them here? > > Having default permissions for new objects (something a couple of us are > working towards) would help with this situation some. I don't think the > ground Jeff's proposal would cover is entirely covered by just having > default permissions though. >
One case that it would not cover is creating new roles that you would like to have access to existing objects. Defaults may be useful independently, though, so I think the proposals are overlapping, but generally different. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers