From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <pjmodos@pjmodos.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 22:04:49 +0200
Message-ID: <162867790908051304v45240d7aub0e4bccb6a6c8a1b@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28123.1249501226@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4A37BF63.50008@pjmodos.net>
<4A38A956.8080600@pjmodos.net>
<4A4DE104.8090605@pjmodos.net>
<a301bfd90907170254re7dd52es9fedb007376d8055@mail.gmail.com>
<4A6059B4.5010004@pjmodos.net>
<4A607997.3030305@pjmodos.net>
<21542.1249492707@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<4A79D60D.1090900@agliodbs.com>
<603c8f070908051221u676e9d68ya42f5099aafb2e8e@mail.gmail.com>
<28123.1249501226@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2009/8/5 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> I have one database that is set up with a reporting user (read only on
>> everything). It requires constant maintenance. Every time an object
>> is added or deleted (or dropped and recreated, like a view, which I do
>> ALL THE TIME to work around the inability to add/remove columns) the
>> permissions get shot to hell. I finally crontabbed a script that
>> fixes it every 20 minutes. I had another database where I tried to do
>> some real permission separation and it was just a huge pain in the
>> ass.
>
>> Grant on all isn't gonna fix these problems completely, but it's a
>> start. The DefaultACL stuff is another important step in the right
>> direction.
>
> Seems like default ACLs, not grant-on-all, is what you want for that.
>
> The idea of better support for plpgsql-driven granting isn't going
> to compete with default ACLs, but it does compete with grant-on-all.
> So that's why I'm thinking we ought to take a harder look at that
> before adding nonstandard extensions to GRANT.
>
> Josh's position that "this should be standard SQL" is nonsense, or
> at least he ought to be making that argument to the standards committee
> not us. It *isn't* standard, and therefore it's up to us to decide how
> we want to expose the facility. What's more, syntax extensions to GRANT
> are a pretty risky way to do it: what if the SQL committee sees the
> light and SQL:201x includes a GRANT extension, only it conflicts with
> ours?
>
> If we want something built-in, maybe providing some prefab plpgsql
> functions is the way to go. But we'd have to arrive at a consensus
> on what best practice of that form looks like.
There are some people, that dislike stored procedures :(. Probably lot
of MySQL users. For them are procedures devil still. I would to like
some base maintenance library in plpgsql. But it's need plpgsql
installed in core by default.
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: pavel.stehule@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, josh@agliodbs.com, pjmodos@pjmodos.net
Subject: Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema
In-Reply-To: <162867790908051304v45240d7aub0e4bccb6a6c8a1b@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox