Hello,
The Postgresql docs on object privileges,
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/ddl-priv.html
say this in regard to the output of the psql \dp command:
| If the “Access privileges” column is empty for a given object, it
| means the object has default privileges (that is, its privileges
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 9:53 AM Luca Ferrari wrote:
>
> testdb=# create or replace function f( a int )
> returns text
> as $$
> use feature 'signatures';
shame on me!
Clearly this cannot work because at the 'use' stage the function is
already running, so the signatures feature is evaluated in the
> On 29/08/2023 03:23 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
>
> If I've done a GRANT or REVOKE on some of the tables, how do I restore
> the default privileges so that the “Access privileges” appears empty
> again? I re-granted what I think are the default privileges but the
> "Access privileges" column for
Erik Wienhold writes:
> On 29/08/2023 03:23 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
>> If I've done a GRANT or REVOKE on some of the tables, how do I restore
>> the default privileges so that the “Access privileges” appears empty
>> again? I re-granted what I think are the default privileges but the
>> "Acces
On 8/29/23 08:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Erik Wienhold writes:
On 29/08/2023 03:23 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
If I've done a GRANT or REVOKE on some of the tables, how do I restore
the default privileges so that the “Access privileges” appears empty
again? I re-granted what I think are the default p
> On 29/08/2023 18:43 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
>
> How does one distinguish between (blank)=(default privileges)
> and (blank)=(no privileges)?
>
> Shouldn't psql put *something* (like "(default)" or "-") in the
> "Access privileges" column to indicate that? Or conversely,
> something (like "(no
Erik Wienhold writes:
> On 29/08/2023 18:43 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
>> Shouldn't psql put *something* (like "(default)" or "-") in the
>> "Access privileges" column to indicate that? Or conversely,
>> something (like "(none)"?) in the revoked case?
> Indeed, that's confusing. Command \dp alw
> On 29/08/2023 21:27 CEST Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Yeah, perhaps. The reason it so seldom comes up is that a state of
> zero privileges is extremely rare (because it's useless in practice).
>
> That being the case, if we were to do something about this, I'd vote
> for changing the display of zero-pri
On 8/28/23 18:35, Jerry Sievers wrote:
> Adrian Klaver writes:
>
>> On 8/28/23 13:06, Alan Stange wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>> We recently changed the name of the superuser role in our database,
> My take on this, is that the *postmaster* user is perhaps the one that
> the OP cut privileges on, and thus
On 8/29/23 13:27, Tom Lane wrote:
Erik Wienhold writes:
On 29/08/2023 18:43 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
Shouldn't psql put *something* (like "(default)" or "-") in the
"Access privileges" column to indicate that? Or conversely,
something (like "(none)"?) in the revoked case?
Indeed, that's
I recently created a superuser with createuser on 15.4 and was surprised that
the superuser also has the CREATEDB and CREATEROLE attribute (although redundant
for a superuser). The docs [1] even say that --no-createdb and --no-createrole
are the defaults. Those options don't even have an effect w
> On 29/08/2023 22:44 CEST Stuart McGraw wrote:
>
> That change would still require someone using \dp to realize that
> the "Access privileges" value could be either '' or NULL (I guess
> that could be pointed out more obviously in the psql doc), and then
> do a '\pset null' before doing \dp? Tha
On Wed, 2023-08-30 at 02:44 +0200, Erik Wienhold wrote:
> I recently created a superuser with createuser on 15.4 and was surprised that
> the superuser also has the CREATEDB and CREATEROLE attribute (although
> redundant
> for a superuser). The docs [1] even say that --no-createdb and
> --no-cre
Alan Stange writes:
> On 8/28/23 18:35, Jerry Sievers wrote:
>
>> Adrian Klaver writes:
>>
>>> On 8/28/23 13:06, Alan Stange wrote:
>>>
All,
We recently changed the name of the superuser role in our database,
>> My take on this, is that the *postmaster* user is perhaps the one that
>>
14 matches
Mail list logo
