Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0AKihB17860
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:44:43 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g0AKifg22450;
	Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:44:41 -0500 (EST)
To: "Marc Mitchell" <marcm@eisolution.com>
cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Grant all to Public & adding users 
In-reply-to: <010501c19a06$0e8d3120$620aa8c0@nmtransfer.com> 
References: <010501c19a06$0e8d3120$620aa8c0@nmtransfer.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Marc Mitchell" <marcm@eisolution.com>
	message dated "Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:38:49 -0600"
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:44:41 -0500
Message-ID: <22447.1010695481@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200201/53
X-Sequence-Number: 2941

"Marc Mitchell" <marcm@eisolution.com> writes:
> We have existing database where several tables have GRANT ALL TO PUBLIC.
> However, when new users are added, they seem to get privilege problem until
> another GRANT ALL TO PUBLIC is issued.  If this is truly the case (and
> we're not crazy) then each time a new user is added, new GRANTs will have
> to be executed.  Is this correct?

It shouldn't behave that way, no.  PUBLIC isn't an explicit list of
users but an implicit "everybody" class.  I suspect you have
misdescribed your problem.  There have been other known bugs in
privilege-manipulation though.  What PG version are you using?
Can you give an exact example of a sequence that causes a problem?

			regards, tom lane