On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote:

> On 03/02/2016 12:54 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Joe Conway (m...@joeconway.com) wrote:
> >> On 03/01/2016 08:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Yes, we'd need some way to mark non-null ACLs as being "built-in
> >>> defaults".  I do not see the need to have SQL syntax supporting that
> >>> though.
> >>
> >> I was thinking the supporting syntax might be used by extensions, for
> >> example.
> >
> > I tend to agree with Tom that we don't really need SQL syntax for this.
> > I don't see any reason it couldn't be used by extensions also, though
> > we'd have to do a bit more work on pg_dump to make it actually dump
> > out any non-default ACLs for extension-owned objects.
> Without any syntax, what does the extension do, directly insert into
> this special catalog table?
​The desire in the thread I linked was for the user, not the extension, to
alter the permissions.  In that context (and possibly here as well)
PostgreSQL would (somehow?) recognize the ​target as being special and thus
requiring adding or updating an entry into the supplemental catalog table
when the usual GRANT/REVOKE SQL command is issued.

​In effect any object dependent upon an EXTENSION or that already exists in
this special catalog table would need to have the supplemental procedure

David J.

Reply via email to