Re: [HACKERS] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... vs. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES

2015-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:42 AM, David Fetter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:16:31AM +0100, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM, David Fetter wrote: >> > Had this been part of the original ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES patch, >> > those

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... vs. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES

2015-10-31 Thread David Fetter
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:16:31AM +0100, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM, David Fetter wrote: > > Had this been part of the original ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES patch, > > those privileges would simply have been applied. Since it wasn't, I'm > > ass-u-me'ing

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... vs. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES

2015-10-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM, David Fetter wrote: > Had this been part of the original ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES patch, > those privileges would simply have been applied. Since it wasn't, I'm > ass-u-me'ing that changing the default behavior to that is going to > cause

[HACKERS] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... vs. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES

2015-10-29 Thread David Fetter
Folks, I've run into a problem recently, and I can't be the first to have done so, and it's this. We have a pretty sophisticated capability via ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES. When the creating role creates something in a schema so altered, all kinds of nice recursive granting happens. That's well

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... vs. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES

2015-10-29 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter writes: > Since it's not a green field project, I would like to propose the > following addition to the ALTER ... OWNER TO ... construct: > ALTER ... OWNER TO ... [{NEW | OLD} DEFAULT PRIVILEGES] > What say? I'd say "you haven't actually defined what either of

Re: [HACKERS] ALTER ... OWNER TO ... vs. ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES

2015-10-29 Thread David Fetter
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:25:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter writes: > > Since it's not a green field project, I would like to propose the > > following addition to the ALTER ... OWNER TO ... construct: > > ALTER ... OWNER TO ... [{NEW | OLD} DEFAULT PRIVILEGES] > >