On 02/08/2013 08:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Kretschmer <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxx> hat am 8. Februar 2013 um 16:19
So what does \dn+ public show?
db115150=# \dn+ public
List of schemas
Name | Owner | Access privileges | Description
--------+----------+-----------------------------+------------------------
public | postgres | postgres=UC/postgres +| standard public schema
| | akretschmer01=U*C*/postgres+|
| | ak02=UC/akretschmer01 |
(1 row)
Ah: this shows that you didn't tell us the whole truth to start with.
What you've actually got here is that postgres granted ALL WITH GRANT
OPTION to akretschmer01, and then akretschmer01 used the grant option
to grant rights to ak02. (I was wondering how it was that a non
superuser would be able to grant anything about schema public...)
Only akretschmer01 can directly drop the grant to ak02. What postgres
could do is revoke the grant option to akretschmer01, and the cascaded
effect of that would remove the privileges for ak02.
Of course, postgres has other options besides that, of which "DROP OWNED
BY ak02" is probably the most appropriate here. Or if you really want
to get rid of just that grant, SET ROLE TO akretschmer01 and revoke.
The DROP OWNED was tried further up the thread and did not seem to work:
"
nice idea, but unfortunately no:
db115150=# drop owned by ak02;
DROP OWNED
db115150=# drop user ak02;
FEHLER: kann Rolle »ak02« nicht löschen, weil andere Objekte davon abhängen
DETAIL: Privilegien für Schema public
"
regards, tom lane
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxx
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
