| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures |
| Date: | 2004-05-01 15:39:52 |
| Message-ID: | 14322.1083425992@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> Well, if I issue a "REVOKE" and the rights are not revoked and could never
> have been because I have no right to issue such statement on the object, I
> tend to call this deep absence of success a "failure".
> If I do the very opposite GRANT, I have a clear "permission denied".
Oh, I thought you were complaining that revoking rights not previously
granted should be an error. I agree with the above; in fact it's a
duplicate of a previous complaint.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ted Kremenek | 2004-05-02 18:05:38 | [CHECKER] 4 memory leaks in Postgresql 7.4.2 |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-05-01 09:23:08 | Re: BUG #1145: silent REVOKE failures |