|
Dear Tom,
I'm sorry to bother you. i really care about
this behavior, but i couldn't find the discussions you mentioned in
pgsql-hackers archives.
Would you please tell me more about the
discussions(about date? the related issue?), so that i can search it and
find it more easily?
Thank you very much !
Regards
-Dongni
"Tom Lane" <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ???? news:4759.1261758025@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > "donniehan" <donniehan@xxxxxxx> writes: >> I have a question about the grantor. Why the grantor is owner in the following case ? I think it should be postgres(dba). > > Grants done by a superuser on an object he doesn't own are treated as > being done by the object owner instead. Otherwise you end up with > grants that don't have a clear chain of traceability to the owner, > which causes all sorts of un-fun issues for REVOKE. (I'm too lazy > to come up with the details right now, but if you care you can look > back in the pgsql-hackers archives to find the discussions where this > behavior was agreed on.) > > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > |
