Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1soV46-00BiDy-Oz for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:39:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1soV46-008cTw-El for pgsql-general@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:39:54 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1soV46-008cTo-3W for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:39:54 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1soV43-000hHD-2B for pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:39:52 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 48BLdmDG3908086; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:39:48 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Dominique Devienne cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Backward compat issue with v16 around ROLEs In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Dominique Devienne message dated "Wed, 11 Sep 2024 16:41:58 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3908084.1726090788.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:39:48 -0400 Message-ID: <3908085.1726090788@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Dominique Devienne writes: > Hi. I'm going around in circles trying to solve an issue with our > system when running against a PostgreSQL v16 server. Which is linked > to the weakening of CREATEROLE to have more granular permissions. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the relevant v16 change is that CREATEROLE used to imply having ADMIN on every (non-superuser) role. Now it doesn't, and you have to actually have a WITH ADMIN OPTION grant. You do automatically get WITH ADMIN OPTION on roles you create yourself --- but in this example, dd_owner did not create dd_admin. regards, tom lane