(2010/09/07 6:16), Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Jim Nasby's message of jue jun 10 17:54:43 -0400 2010: >> test...@workbook=# select has_table_privilege( 'public', 'test', 'SELECT' ); >> ERROR: role "public" does not exist > > Here's a patch implementing this idea. > I checked this patch.
It seems to me it replaces whole of get_role_oid() in has_*_privilege functions by the new get_role_oid_or_public(), so this patch allows to accept the pseudo "public" user in consistent way. The pg_has_role_*() functions are exception. It will raise an error with error message of "role "public" does not exist". Is it an expected bahavior, isn't it? > I'm not too sure about the wording in the doc changes. If somebody > wants to propose something better, I'm all ears. To facilitate > bikeshedding, here's a relevant extract: > > has_table_privilege checks whether a user can access a table in > a particular way. The user can be specified by name; as public, > to indicate the PUBLIC pseudo-role; by OID (pg_authid.oid), or, > if the argument is omitted, current_user is assumed. > > (the first appearance of public is<literal>public</>. I had first made > it<quote> but that didn't feel right.) > It seems to me fair enough, but I'm not a native in English. > Another thing that could raise eyebrows is that I chose to remove the > "missing_ok" argument from get_role_oid_or_public, so it's not a perfect > mirror of it. None of the current callers need it, but perhaps people > would like these functions to be consistent. > Tom Lane suggested to add missing_ok argument, although it is not a must- requirement. Thanks, -- KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
