On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > During the closing days of the 9.1 release, we had discussed that we > should add privileges on types (and domains), so that owners can prevent > others from using their types because that would prevent the owners from > changing them in certain ways. (Collations have similar issues and work > quite similar to types, so we could include them in this consideration.) > > As I'm plotting to write code for this, I wonder about how to handle > default privileges. For compatibility and convenience, we would still > want to have types with public privileges by default. Should we > continue to hardcode this, as we have done in the past with functions, > for example, or should we use the new default privileges facility to > register the public default privileges in the template database?
I think it would make sense to follow the model of default privileges, but I'm a bit confused by the rest of this, because pg_default_acl is normally empty - you only make an entry there when a schema has different defaults than the, uh, default defaults. So you shouldn't need to "register" anything, I wouldn't think. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
