On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:31:29PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> It'd really help if REVOKE consistently raised warnings when it didn't
> actually revoke anything.
+1
This will invite the same mixed feelings as the CREATE x IF NOT EXISTS
notices, but I think it's worthwhile.
> Even better, a special case for REVOKEs on objects that only have owner
> and public permissions could say:
>
> WARNING: REVOKE didn't remove any permissions for user <blah>. This
> <table/db/whatever>
> has default permissions, so there were no GRANTs for user <blah> to
> revoke. See the documentation
> for REVOKE for more information.
The extra aid from saying those particular things is not clear to me.
It might be overkill, but we could report any other roles indirectly conveying
access to the named role.