> I'm not real comfortable with this. The design I proposed is based > fairly firmly on the Unix directory/file protection model --- which > is assuredly not perfect, but it's survived a lot of use and is not > known to have major flaws. You're suggesting that we should invent
Will we be able to accomplish the equivelent of the below? knight# ls -la total 3 drwxr-xr-x 2 rbt rbt 512 Apr 18 21:53 . drwxr-xr-x 43 rbt rbt 2048 Apr 18 21:36 .. -rwx------ 1 root wheel 0 Apr 18 21:53 file knight# head /etc/group # $FreeBSD: src/etc/group,v 1.19.2.1 2001/11/24 17:22:24 gshapiro Exp $ # wheel:*:0:root daemon:*:1:daemon kmem:*:2:root sys:*:3:root tty:*:4:root operator:*:5:root mail:*:6: bin:*:7: knight# exit exit bash-2.05a$ whoami rbt bash-2.05a$ rm file override rwx------ root/wheel for file? y bash-2.05a$ ls -la total 3 drwxr-xr-x 2 rbt rbt 512 Apr 18 21:55 . drwxr-xr-x 43 rbt rbt 2048 Apr 18 21:36 .. > > I'd really like to see a schema owner have full control over all > > objects in a schema, and likewise a database owner have full control > > over their database. My POV for large systems. > Those things are both easily done: just don't allow anyone else to > create objects in your schema (resp. database). This is indeed what Yes, basically what we do now. I'm hoping to add the ability to enable a group (ROLES) to have ownership of items as well as users when I complete the other tasks I've set before myself. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
