Re: DEFAULT PRIVILEGES incorrect - Mailing list pgadmin-support

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Sanket Mehta <sanket.mehta@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Hi Dave,

Below is my understanding of this issue:

In ALTER DEFAULT PRIVLEGES statement, "FOR ROLE <target_name> "part is missing.

That's what Erwin has reported, yes.

 

as per postgresql documentation target_name should follow below rule:

target_name: 

The name of an existing role of which the current role is a member. If FOR ROLE is omitted, the current role is assumed.

So target_name should be owner of this schema which is "foo".

I don't think the owner has anything to do with it. It says the name of an existing role (of which the current role is a member), or the current role if unspecified.

In that case, it should be FOR ROLE 'postgres' as postgres is the current role. 

SET ROLE foo;

 

Please let me know if I am right in my understanding or something is missing.

Regards,

Sanket Mehta

Sr Software engineer

Enterprisedb

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Sanket Mehta <sanket.mehta@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

Hi Dave,

Sure I will look into it and get back.

Regards,

Sanket Mehta

Sr Software engineer

Enterprisedb

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

Sanket - can you take a look at this when you get a minute please?

Thanks.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Erwin Brandstetter <brsaweda@gmail.com> wrote:
> This bug has not been addressed in pgAdmin 1.22.0, yet.
>
> If I run this as user postgres:
>
> ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES FOR ROLE foo IN SCHEMA test
>     GRANT SELECT ON TABLES
>     TO bar;
>
> Then the SQL pane says (still as user postgres):
>
> ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA test
>     GRANT SELECT ON TABLES
>     TO bar;
>
> Which is incorrect and misleading.
>
> Regards
>
> Erwin
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Erwin Brandstetter <brsaweda@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The display of ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES statements can be incorrect.
>>
>> I reported this bug in 2013, but it seems like it never got through:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/528C2D00.6010905@falter.at
>>
>> Details, with steps to reproduce:
>> https://redmine.postgresql.org/issues/694
>>
>> Just tested with version 1.20 again and the situation seems unchanged.
>>
>> Regards
>> Erwin
>
>

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--

Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company