On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> My understanding is that this patch will need to be reworked as well >> based on Tom's comments on "DefaultACLs". Does that sound right? >> Should we expect a new version this week, or defer this until the >> September CommitFest? > > I was planning to go review that patch too, even though it's presumably > not committable yet.
OK, that's good information, thanks. > I'm not sure whether there is consensus on not using GRANT ON VIEW > (ie, having these patches treat tables and views alike). I was waiting > to see if Stephen would put forward a convincing counterargument ... The argument is better for defaults that it is for grant on all, I think, though we also don't want the two to be asymmetric. Defaults need to be really simple to have any value, I think, and avoid violating the POLA. But bulk-grant could be based on object type, object name (with wildcard or regexp pattern), schema membership, or maybe other things, and I think that would be quite useful if we can figure out how to make it clean and elegant. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
