From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Role membership and DROP
In-reply-to: <504497aca66bf34bdcdd90bd0bcebdc3a33f577b.camel@cybertec.at>
References: <504497aca66bf34bdcdd90bd0bcebdc3a33f577b.camel@cybertec.at>
Comments: In-reply-to Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
	message dated "Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:36:11 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6807.1573683426.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:17:06 -0500
Message-ID: <6808.1573683426@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
> I realized only today that if role A is a member of role B,
> A can ALTER and DROP objects owned by B.
> I don't have a problem with that, but the documentation seems to
> suggest otherwise.  For example, for DROP TABLE:

>    Only the table owner, the schema owner, and superuser can drop a table.

Generally, if you are a member of a role, that means you are the role for
privilege-test purposes.  I'm not on board with adding "(or a member of
that role)" to every place it could conceivably be added; I think that
would be more annoying than helpful.

It might be worth clarifying this point in section 5.7,

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/ddl-priv.html

but let's not duplicate that in every ref/ page.

			regards, tom lane