Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 3:15 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Maybe. What I was pointing out is that this is SQL-standard syntax >> and there are SQL-standard semantics that it ought to be implementing. >> Probably those semantics match what you describe here, but we ought >> to dive into the spec and make sure before we spend a lot of effort. >> It's not quite clear to me whether the spec defines any particular >> unique key (identity) for the set of role authorizations.
> I sort of thought http://postgr.es/m/3981966.1646429...@sss.pgh.pa.us > constituted a completed investigation of this sort. No? I didn't think so. It's clear that the spec expects us to track the grantor, but I didn't chase down what it expects us to *do* with that information, nor what it thinks the rules are for merging multiple authorizations. regards, tom lane
