I'm new to PostgreSQL and was following this tutorial. I can create roles just fine but when I tried to use the createuser and dropuser commands, it just doesn't do anything and no new users are created or any deleted. I tried to use it with and without the semi colon at the end, the former gives a syntax error and the latter just doesn't do anything.
postgres-# createuser joe;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "createuser"
LINE 1: createuser
^
postgres=# ;
postgres=# createuser joe;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "createuser"
LINE 1: createuser joe;
^
postgres=# createuser joe
postgres-# \du
List of roles
Role name | Attributes | Member of
-----------+------------------------------------------------------------+-----------
admin | Superuser, Create DB | {}
john | Superuser, Create role, Create DB, Replication | {}
guest | | {}
guest3 | | {}
postgres | Superuser, Create role, Create DB, Replication, Bypass RLS | {}
I also tried this:
createuser --interactive joe
This also didn't do anything.
What's the correct way to use createuser? I'm using the following version.
postgres (PostgreSQL) 11.1
Inside the psql tool you need to enter SQL commands. To create a user from SQL, you need to use create user.
The tutorial probably was running the command line utility createuser (not the SQL command)
To understand why:
postgres=# createuser joe
did not do anything, see: In psql, why do some commands have no effect?
I think you need a space between your command, something like the following:
CREATE USER youruser WITH ENCRYPTED PASSWORD 'yourpass';
GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON DATABASE yourdbname TO youruser;
Command createuser need to run in console(bash). No need to do it in psql.
Example:
createuser -h localhost -p 5432 joe
Related
Hopefully someone can help me, when the developer queried to insert data, it gives the following error.
1142 - INSERT command denied to user 'db_user'#'localhost' for table 'table_name'
I checked user privileges, the user is granted for all the permissions:
MariaDB [(none)]> show grants for 'db_user'#'localhost';
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Grants for db_user#localhost |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| GRANT USAGE ON *.* TO `db_user`#`localhost` IDENTIFIED BY PASSWORD '*8FBC7CD05DD7354A9EAD92EC508E27E334FE' |
| GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON `db`.* TO `db_user`#`localhost` |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
How can I resolve the issue?
"USAGE grants no real privileges". Its a confusing name. So more GRANT is needed:
GRANT INSERT ON dbname.table_name TO db_user#localhost;
How can I verify the privileges after granting the following to the read_only_user?
alter default privileges for role read_only_user grant all on tables to foodapp;
You can run this query to get default privileges:
SELECT
defaclrole::regrole,
defaclnamespace::regnamespace,
CASE defaclobjtype
WHEN 'r' THEN 'relation'
WHEN 'S' THEN 'sequence'
WHEN 'f' THEN 'function'
WHEN 'T' THEN 'type'
WHEN 'n' THEN 'schema'
END,
(aclexplode(defaclacl)).*
FROM pg_default_acl;
And then add a WHERE clause for the user if you want to filter it.
Or in psql you can use:
\\ddp
Your question is seems interesting. I'm mentioning some ways below please read carefully and try it in your system. Some of them might help you. :)
You can do that by following:
In One line
postgres=> \l
This command will display the information you're looking for.
like this.
postgres=> \l
List of databases
Name | Owner | Encoding | Collate | Ctype | Access privileges
-----------+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-----------------------
postgres | postgres | UTF8 | en_US.UTF-8 | en_US.UTF-8 |
template0 | postgres | UTF8 | en_US.UTF-8 | en_US.UTF-8 | =c/postgres +
| | | | | postgres=CTc/postgres
template1 | postgres | UTF8 | en_US.UTF-8 | en_US.UTF-8 | =c/postgres +
| | | | | postgres=CTc/postgres
The docs on Privileges give an explanation of how to interpret the output. For specific privileges on a table of the current database, use \z myTable.
Undercovers psql uses the bellow query when you issue \du command.
SELECT r.rolname, r.rolsuper, r.rolinherit,
r.rolcreaterole, r.rolcreatedb, r.rolcanlogin,
r.rolconnlimit, r.rolvaliduntil,
ARRAY(SELECT b.rolname
FROM pg_catalog.pg_auth_members m
JOIN pg_catalog.pg_roles b ON (m.roleid = b.oid)
WHERE m.member = r.oid) as memberof
, r.rolreplication
, r.rolbypassrls
FROM pg_catalog.pg_roles r
WHERE r.rolname !~ '^pg_'
ORDER BY 1;
In the case of the table.
SELECT grantee, privilege_type
FROM information_schema.role_table_grants
WHERE table_name='mytable'
This gives you this kind of output:
mail=# select grantee, privilege_type from information_schema.role_table_grants where table_name='aliases';
grantee | privilege_type
--------------+-----------------
mailreader | INSERT
mailreader | SELECT
mailreader | UPDATE
mailreader | DELETE
mailreader | TRUNCATE
mailreader | REFERENCES
mailreader | TRIGGER
(7 rows)
mail=#
Note that (at least under Postgres 9.4) the above will not work for materialized views.
Using psql meta-commands:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/app-psql.html
Going over the page with Ctrl+F gives:
\ddp [ pattern ]
Lists default access privilege settings.
\dp [ pattern ] Lists tables, views and sequences with their
associated access privileges.
\l[+] [ pattern ] List the databases in the server and show...
access privileges.
Also mentioned above, but not found with word "privileges" on the manual page:
\du+ for roles with login and \dg+ for roles without - will have a filed "Member of" where you find roles granted to roles.
I deliberately skip function and language privileges here, found in psql manual as barely manipulated (and if you do use those privileges you won't come here for advice). same for user-defined types, domains, and so on - using "+" after the meta-command will show you privileges if applicable.
A little extreme way to check the privileges is dropping the user in the transaction, e.g.:
s=# begin; drop user x;
BEGIN
Time: 0.124 ms
ERROR: role "x" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
DETAIL: privileges for type "SO dT"
privileges for sequence so
privileges for schema bin
privileges for table xx
privileges for table "csTest"
privileges for table tmp_x
privileges for table s1
privileges for table test
Time: 0.211 ms
s=# rollback;
ROLLBACK
Time: 0.150 ms
When the list is longer than N, (at least in 9.3), the warning with the list of privileges is collapsed, but you still can find it full in logs...
I have installed yugabytedb in minikube on my laptop and created a database with owner 'Rodgers'.
Then I run the ysqlsh to execute ysql commands from the terminal, one of which is 'CREATE DATABASE ...'.
Problem
When I try connecting to the database using an external Go application by providing the application with user as 'Rodgers' and the set password, it fails to connect.
I have found out that the tables created were attached to owner 'yugabyte', not 'Rodgers'.
But the database to which I have connected and from where am running the CREATE DATABASE command belongs to Rodgers.
What's going on here?
It's best to rehearse all this using "ysqlsh". When everything works there, connecting from any client program (Python, go, ...) etc will work — as long as you have the right driver. The PostgresSQL drivers work with YugabyteDB.
The following is mainly commands for "ysqlsh" — both SQLs and so-called metacommands (the ones starting with backslash). But occasionally, there are commands that you do from the O/S prompt. So you must read the following carefully and then do what it says after each comment — mainly in "ysqlsh" but a couple of times at the O/S prompt. So you can't simply run the script "lights out".
Start with virgin YB single-node cluster (fresh from "yb-create).
$ ysqlsh -h localhost -p 5433 -d yugabyte -U yugabyte
Now follow the script.
-- Shows two "Superuser" users: "postgres" and "yugabyte" (nothing else).
\du
-- Shows two databases: "postgres" and "yugabyte" (nothing else except "system" databases).
-- Both "postgres" and "yugabyte" databases are owned by "postgres".
\l
-- Create a new "ordinary user and connect as that user.
create user rodgers login password 'p';
alter user rodgers createdb;
-- Now connect to database yugabyte as user rodgers
\c yugabyte rodgers
-- Create a new database and check it's there.
create database rog_db owner rodgers;
\l
-- Name | Owner | Encoding | Collate | Ctype | Access privileges
-- -----------------+----------+----------+---------+-------------+-----------------------
...
-- rog_db | rodgers | UTF8 | C | en_US.UTF-8 |
-- ...
-- Now connect to the new "rog_db" database. Works fine.
\c rog_db rodgers
-- Quit "ysqlsh.
\q
Connect again. Works fine.
$ ysqlsh -h localhost -p 5433 -d rog_db -U rodgers
Now carry on with the script.
-- Works fine.
create table t(k int primary key);
-- Inspect it. First "\d", then "\d t".
\d
-- List of relations
-- Schema | Name | Type | Owner
-- --------+------+-------+---------
-- public | t | table | rodgers
\d t
-- Table "public.t"
Column | Type | Collation | Nullable | Default
-- --------+---------+-----------+----------+---------
-- k | integer | | not null |
-- Indexes:
-- "t_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, lsm (k HASH)
-- This is OK for playing. But terrible for real work.
drop table t;
\c rog_db yugabyte
drop schema public;
\c rog_db rodgers
create schema rog_schema authorization rodgers;
-- For future connect commands.
alter user rodgers set search_path = 'rog_schema';
-- for here and now.
set schema 'rog_schema';
create table t(k int primary key);
\d
-- List of relations
-- Schema | Name | Type | Owner
-- ------------+------+-------+---------
-- rog_schema | t | table | rodgers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just stepped through all of this using "YB-2.2.0.0-b0" on my laptop (macOS Big Sur). It all worked fine.
Please try this in your minikube env and report back.
Regards, Bryn Llewellyn, Technical Product Manager at Yugabyte Inc.
I'm trying to learn Postgres and Ive made two basic tables and I can't join them together.
here is my list Of relations:
Schema | Name | Type | Owner
--------+--------------+----------+----------
public | login | table | postgres
public | login_id_seq | sequence | postgres
public | users | table | test
(3 rows)
When I use the command
SELECT * FROM users JOIN login ON users.name = login.name;
I get
ERROR: permission denied for relation login
I have no idea what to do or what I did wrong.
You should grant the SELECT permission to user test:
GRANT SELECT ON login TO test;
If if might allow test to modify login, you should grant other permissions as well:
GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON login TO test;
You should execute these statements as database owner or as user postgres. In general, you can use
psql -Upostgres -dtest
if you're running this command on the same machine where the Postgres server is running.
You may also change the ownership of login to test:
ALTER TABLE login OWNER TO test;
ALTER SEQUENCE login_id_seq OWNER TO test;
But have to execute this as user postgres as well.
Edit: You can try to change the user with
SET ROLE 'postgres';
as suggested by #lat long.
So this is what I did to finally get it to work...I basically just went into the login properties on pgAdmin4, found the owner and switched it to test and ran:
SELECT * FROM users JOIN login ON users.name = login.name;
and finally got what I was looking for. Surprisingly a simple fix.
The "test" user doesn't have permission to login and use the related tables. Run the query with the "postgres" user:
SET ROLE 'postgres';
Then run your query.
Was wanting to add full access for a developer to a database.
I wanted them to be able to have full control over it...including deleting it if they wanted.
Somehow I stumbled upon two ways. Are these the right ways??
What's the difference of between access/permissions between the both commands?
What is the correct command to accomplish what I want?
Thanks.
Command 1
USE [testdb1]
GO
ALTER USER [john] WITH DEFAULT_SCHEMA=[dbo]
GO
Command 2
USE [testdb1]
GO
EXEC sp_addrolemember N'db_owner', N'john'
GO
According to the latest sp_addrolemember documentation, sp_addrolemember should be avoided and ALTER ROLE should be used instead.
This feature will be removed in a future version of Microsoft SQL Server. Avoid using this feature in new development work, and plan to modify applications that currently use this feature. Use ALTER ROLE instead.
There is no difference between the two as of SQL Server 2012.
alter role [RoleName] add member [MemberName];
is equivalent to
exec sp_addrolemember N'RoleName', N'MemberName';
References:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189775.aspx
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187750.aspx
MSDN is a great source for answering that:
sp_addrolemember
Adds a database user, database role, Windows login, or Windows group
to a database role in the current database.
ALTER USER
Renames a database user or changes its default schema.
Note also the syntax:
sp_addrolemember [ #rolename = ] 'role',
[ #membername = ] 'security_account'
-- SQL Server Syntax
ALTER USER userName
WITH <set_item> [ ,...n ]
[;]
<set_item> ::=
NAME = newUserName
| DEFAULT_SCHEMA = { schemaName | NULL }
| LOGIN = loginName
| PASSWORD = 'password' [ OLD_PASSWORD = 'oldpassword' ]
| DEFAULT_LANGUAGE = { NONE | <lcid> | <language name> | <language alias> }
| ALLOW_ENCRYPTED_VALUE_MODIFICATIONS = [ ON | OFF ]
In other words, using sp_addrolemember, you could only add database user, database role, Windows login, or Windows group in the current database.
But using ALTER USER, you could alter its name, its default schema, its login name, its password, etc... which certain is unable to be done by using sp_addrolemember.
Check the two MSDN links. They are great source for info using SQL Server
As for your case, you probably want to use sp_addrolemember, provided that you already have a role which could give the user the access that they need (most probably db_owner).
USE [testdb1]
GO
EXEC sp_addrolemember N'db_owner', N'john'
GO
When you alter default schema of a user, it does not mean that they get new role - but they get new default schema, and the accessibility will depend on the security rules in the new schema for the existing user role. It could give you what you want, depends on the security rules for the user in the default schema it has.