DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=tjyATH5kikWDtF5xgdTqXvC99O2BfdygbUmo8bcpH7Fxf5TeLzIIjxQ1YbJ3vDmz4r
	MH10OPKfXeGqFUKOnqRUY5Zp2ka6CE9U7GTkSXSjqlhduFRm/0OaYkvisIAptYGijk1Q
	ZtJMbx+uEiqjv3f96gLkMo1PUXmRbqz7HHZ/o=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7045.1246979795@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4A37BF63.50008@pjmodos.net> <4A37E122.8070303@pjmodos.net>
	<4A38A956.8080600@pjmodos.net> <4A4DE104.8090605@pjmodos.net>
	<1246963514.3874.156.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<7045.1246979795@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:10:13 +0100
Message-ID: <407d949e0907071010v71e2bafam6d5fc6ae56e2fed5@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Petr Jelinek <pjmodos@pjmodos.net>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> (I'm sure we can do something intelligent with privileges that don't
>> apply to all object types rather than just fail. e.g. UPDATE privilege
>> should be same as USAGE on a sequence.)
>
> Anything you do in that line will be an ugly kluge, and will tend to
> encourage insecure over-granting of privileges (ie GRANT ALL ON ALL
> OBJECTS ... what's the point of using permissions at all then?)

That seems a bit pessimistic. While I disagree with Simon's rule I
think you can get plenty of mileage out of a more conservative rule of
just granting the privilege to all objects for which that privilege is
defined. Especially when you consider that we allow listing multiple
privileges in a single command.

-- 
greg
http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf