Search Results

You've just run into a peculiarity of psql on Windows. In my comment I just wanted to exclude the possibility that you really didn't have the necessary permission. Then it turned out that even on …

The problem here is the ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES statement you issued will apply only to tables that are created by user_name: You can change default privileges only for objects that will be created …

The documentation to the rescue: UPDATE [...] For schemas, allows access to objects contained in the specified schema (assuming that the objects' own privilege requirements are also met). Essentially …

As the owner of the table, you can create a function (or, if you are on Postgres 11 or newer, a procedure) which disables the trigger of your choice like: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION disable_this_trig …

You can set column level privileges to very specifically (and narrowly) allow otherwise unprivileged users to access data. In your case, it is two catalogs: pg_attribute and pg_type. I have a user ca …

According to the documentation, what one needs for creating tables in a schema is CREATE on that schema. This you think you revoked, but as you experience it didn't really happen - the only plausible …

There is no builtin role like that in PostgreSQL. However, you can set up one: CREATE ROLE db_datawriter; After this, you have to assign write privileges (usually INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, maybe TRU …

Up until 9.4 You can go and ask the system catalogs (pg_type, to be precise): SELECT rolname FROM pg_type t JOIN pg_authid r ON typowner = r.oid WHERE typname = 'bla'; usename ───────── …

arwdDxt/bob ↵│ │ │ │ alice=r/bob │ As you can see, despite creating the table in alice's schema where she set the default privileges, bob's table doesn't have all those permissions …

In an Azure Synapse dedicated SQL pool I have the following setup: -- a custom DB role to manage privileges CREATE ROLE [owner]; -- there is a schema owned by this role CREATE SCHEMA [myschema] AUTHO …

You can achieve this goal by revoking certain privileges. You might have the reasons to do so - the only scenario where I'd start thinking about it is multi-tenancy. Still, in this case, it is bette …

The reason is that GRANT only gives permissions, while LOGIN is an attribute of the user/role: CREATE USER rails; -- means it has LOGIN CREATE ROLE myuser; GRANT rails TO myuser; \du rails …

As it sounds, the tables (not necessary the database) is owned by the app user. This is what the documentation tells about this: If the "Access privileges" column is empty for a given object, it …

What you see typically happens when the non-privileged user doesn't have schema level privileges. In this case, they cannot list the objects inside the given schema - with the command you tried. See …

The documentation of GRANT says the following: CREATE For databases, allows new schemas to be created within the database. For schemas, allows new objects to be created within the schema. To ren …