On 30 January 2017 at 16:43, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Agreed. Let me reiterate: all I want in this release is >> super-ownership. > > While I'm not entirely convinced whether super-ownership is a good idea > or not, I am pretty sure that rushing to get it into v10 is a bad idea. > This is a rather fundamental change in our permissions model and it > might turn out to have undesirable consequences.
Agreed. My view is that the current mechanism almost forces people to use superusers for many things and that is definitely undesirable. > Or even more directly: any patch for this would necessarily be landing > in the last v10 commitfest. We have a project policy against major > changes showing up for the first time in the last fest of a cycle, > for good reasons. I understand. > Let's take our time and get it right. So we are able to see what is proposed, I attach a patch. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
db_owner_has_obj_privs.v1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
