Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I'm not really a fan of just dropping the CREATE check. If we go with
> > "recipient needs CREATE rights" then at least without superuser
> > intervention and excluding cases where
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:01 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> I don't think I really agree that "because a superuser can arrange for
> it to not be valid" that it follows that requiring the recipient to have
> CREATE permission on the parent object doesn't make sense. Surely for
> any of these scenarios
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 5:49 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> > My colleague Adam realized that when transferring ownership, 'REASSIGN
> > OWNED' command doesn't check 'CREATE privilege on the table's schema' on
> > new owner but 'ALTER TABLE
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 5:49 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> My colleague Adam realized that when transferring ownership, 'REASSIGN
> OWNED' command doesn't check 'CREATE privilege on the table's schema' on
> new owner but 'ALTER TABLE OWNER TO' docs state that:
Well, that sucks.
> As you can see,
Hi,
My colleague Adam realized that when transferring ownership, 'REASSIGN
OWNED' command doesn't check 'CREATE privilege on the table's schema' on
new owner but 'ALTER TABLE OWNER TO' docs state that:
To alter the owner, you must also be a direct or indirect member of the
new owning role, a
