On lör, 2011-12-10 at 16:16 +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> * ExecGrant_type() prevents 'grant usage on domain' on a type, but the 
> converse is possible.
> postgres=# create domain myint as int2;
> postgres=# grant usage on type myint to public;

This is the same as how we handle types vs. domains elsewhere.  For
example, you can use DROP TYPE to drop a domain, but you can't use DROP
DOMAIN to drop a type.

> * Cannot restrict access to array types. After revoking usage from the 
> element type, the error is perhaps a bit misleading. (smallint[] vs 
> smallint)
> postgres=> create table a (a int2[]);
> ERROR:  permission denied for type smallint[]

OK, that error message should be improved.

> * The patch adds the following text explaining the USAGE privilege on types.
>    For types and domains, this privilege allow the use of the type or
>    domain in the definition of tables, functions, and other schema objects.
> Since other paragraphs in USAGE use the word 'creation' instead of 
> 'definition', I believe here the word 'creation' should be used too.  
> IMHO it would also be good to describe what the USAGE privilege is not, 
> but might be expected since it is such a generic term. USAGE on type: 
> use of the type while creating new dependencies to the type, not usage 
> in the sense of instantiating values of the type. If there are existing 
> dependencies, revoking usage privileges will not return any warning and 
> the dependencies still exist. Also other kinds of exceptions could be 
> noted, such as the exception for array types and casts. The example you 
> gave in the top mail about why restricting access to types can be 
> useful, such as preventing that owners are prevented changing their 
> types because others have 'blocked' them by their usage, is something 
> that could also help readers of the documentation understand why 
> privileges on types are useful for them (or not).

Good suggestions.  I'll review the text.

> * The information schema view 'attributes' has this additional condition:
>            AND (pg_has_role(t.typowner, 'USAGE')
>                 OR has_type_privilege(t.oid, 'USAGE'));
> What happens is that attributes in a composite type are shown, or not, 
> if the current user has USAGE rights. The strange thing here, is that 
> the attribute in the type being show or not, doesn't match being able to 
> use it (in the creation of e.g. a table).

Yeah, that's a bug.  That should be something like

AND (pg_has_role(c.relowner, 'USAGE')
     OR has_type_privilege(c.reltype, 'USAGE'));

I'll produce a new patch for these issues in a bit.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to