Re: [HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

2017-03-31 Thread Tom Lane
"David G. Johnston" writes: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the benefit is reduction of user confusion. Admittedly, since >> Paul is the first person I can remember ever having complained about it, >> maybe nobody

Re: [HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

2017-03-31 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to > >> fear of breaking existing

Re: [HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

2017-03-31 Thread David G. Johnston
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to > >> fear of breaking existing

Re: [HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

2017-03-31 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The argument for not back-patching a bug fix usually boils down to >> fear of breaking existing applications, but it's hard to see how >> removal of a permission check could

Re: [HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

2017-03-31 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> In short, it seems like this statement in the docs is correctly describing >>> our code's behavior, but

Re: [HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

2017-03-31 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In short, it seems like this statement in the docs is correctly describing >> our code's behavior, but said behavior is wrong and should be changed. >> I'd propose fixing it like

Re: [HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

2017-03-31 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > In short, it seems like this statement in the docs is correctly describing > our code's behavior, but said behavior is wrong and should be changed. > I'd propose fixing it like that in HEAD; I'm not sure if the back branches >

[HACKERS] REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article)

2017-03-30 Thread Tom Lane
Paul Jungwirth writes: >> Also I don't understand why you wrote “You need the permission on both >> tables”: Only the owner of a table can add constraints to it > Ah, this piece was really helpful for me in making it click. Thanks so > much! I added a couple new