Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iXTlr-0002fa-IC for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:28:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iXTlq-0002Og-Co for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:28:02 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iXTlq-0002OW-42; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:28:02 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iXTln-0005tC-Us; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:28:01 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xAKHRuqF015792; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:27:56 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Laurenz Albe cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Role membership and DROP In-reply-to: <7ea5836d6b11299334e631b514b0d75a57c5cbf6.camel@cybertec.at> References: <504497aca66bf34bdcdd90bd0bcebdc3a33f577b.camel@cybertec.at> <6808.1573683426@sss.pgh.pa.us> <10546.1573843266@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6c993738c0054bedb9622da0d6789a8d12955cb2.camel@cybertec.at> <22269.1574187697@sss.pgh.pa.us> <7ea5836d6b11299334e631b514b0d75a57c5cbf6.camel@cybertec.at> Comments: In-reply-to Laurenz Albe message dated "Wed, 20 Nov 2019 00:05:11 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <15790.1574270876.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:27:56 -0500 Message-ID: <15791.1574270876@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Laurenz Albe writes: > On Tue, 2019-11-19 at 13:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Looking at the page again, I notice that there's a para a little further >> down that overlaps quite a bit with what we're discussing here, but it's >> about implicit grant options rather than the right to DROP. In the >> attached, I reworded that too, and moved it because it's not fully >> intelligible until we've explained grant options. Thoughts? > I am fine with that. OK, pushed. regards, tom lane