On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:42 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:16:31AM +0100, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>> > Had this been part of the original ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES patch,
>> > those privileges would simply have been applie
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:16:31AM +0100, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > Had this been part of the original ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES patch,
> > those privileges would simply have been applied. Since it wasn't, I'm
> > ass-u-me'ing that changing the
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:31 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> Had this been part of the original ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES patch,
> those privileges would simply have been applied. Since it wasn't, I'm
> ass-u-me'ing that changing the default behavior to that is going to
> cause (possibly legitimate) an
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:25:14PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter writes:
> > Since it's not a green field project, I would like to propose the
> > following addition to the ALTER ... OWNER TO ... construct:
> > ALTER ... OWNER TO ... [{NEW | OLD} DEFAULT PRIVILEGES]
> > What say?
>
> I'd
David Fetter writes:
> Since it's not a green field project, I would like to propose the
> following addition to the ALTER ... OWNER TO ... construct:
> ALTER ... OWNER TO ... [{NEW | OLD} DEFAULT PRIVILEGES]
> What say?
I'd say "you haven't actually defined what either of those options mean".
