From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
        Joshua Brindle <joshua.brindle@crunchydata.com>,
        Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: role self-revocation
In-reply-to: <CA+TgmoYC04O8zEXaoq-e=wXwnx_QvAX7j2BMwZhOxkhuUEuT7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0c095133-7dc7-7a11-b773-0318807380db@enterprisedb.com> <CA+Tgmobbnro+Z-uFZCGr_y6wq8gANo8EaYSvcZK2kekDdtFaZA@mail.gmail.com> <2e2f9ae2-50fc-1a03-394c-ed4288a8cae2@enterprisedb.com> <CA+Tgmoa5+pfDeuAjPtk=pKF2a63X9UoUkWBmbzR56FGoBvD_7g@mail.gmail.com> <20220310195849.GH10577@tamriel.snowman.net> <CA+TgmoZOWjrUJPwCMWKbg6QQ1-+gaKVF7dJREHGHtFvDFuaJpA@mail.gmail.com> <20220310204156.GI10577@tamriel.snowman.net> <CA+Tgmob1yio+Z7qVVnQLiNo_ta34eA7MUTLScEfERY3rMzjDVw@mail.gmail.com> <682134.1646950476@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+Tgmob4pyvBPbpMjpn3Ji7R6YFc3XZtQK-AEdfdOLwMJ5XeLg@mail.gmail.com> <20220311152752.GK10577@tamriel.snowman.net> <CA+TgmoYC04O8zEXaoq-e=wXwnx_QvAX7j2BMwZhOxkhuUEuT7g@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 11 Mar 2022 10:41:17 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <876564.1647013615.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 10:46:55 -0500
Message-ID: <876565.1647013615@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/876565.1647013615%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:27 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> I agree that there would be a recorded relationship (that is, one that
>> we write into the catalog and keep around until and unless it's removed
>> by an admin) between creating and created roles and that's probably the
>> default when CREATE ROLE is run but, unlike tables or such objects in
>> the system, I don't agree that we should require this to exist at
>> absolutely all times for every role (what would it be for the bootstrap
>> superuser..?).  At least today, that's distinct from how ownership in
>> the system works.  I also don't believe that this is necessarily an
>> issue for Robert's use-case, as long as there are appropriate
>> restrictions around who is allowed to remove or modify these
>> relationships.

> I agree.

The bootstrap superuser clearly must be a special case in some way.
I'm not convinced that that means there should be other special
cases.  Maybe there is a use-case for other "unowned" roles, but in
exactly what way would that be different from deeming such roles
to be owned by the bootstrap superuser?

			regards, tom lane