Commit e52b690c authored by Alvaro Herrera's avatar Alvaro Herrera

Don't handle PUBLIC/NONE separately

Since those role specifiers are checked in the grammar, there's no need
for the old checks to remain in place after 31eae602.  Remove them.

Backpatch to 9.5.

Noted and patch by Jeevan Chalke
parent 97f30146
......@@ -311,13 +311,6 @@ CreateRole(CreateRoleStmt *stmt)
errmsg("permission denied to create role")));
}
if (strcmp(stmt->role, "public") == 0 ||
strcmp(stmt->role, "none") == 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_RESERVED_NAME),
errmsg("role name \"%s\" is reserved",
stmt->role)));
/*
* Check the pg_authid relation to be certain the role doesn't already
* exist.
......@@ -1159,13 +1152,6 @@ RenameRole(const char *oldname, const char *newname)
(errcode(ERRCODE_DUPLICATE_OBJECT),
errmsg("role \"%s\" already exists", newname)));
if (strcmp(newname, "public") == 0 ||
strcmp(newname, "none") == 0)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_RESERVED_NAME),
errmsg("role name \"%s\" is reserved",
newname)));
/*
* createrole is enough privilege unless you want to mess with a superuser
*/
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment