Allow SECURITYADMIN to deploy schemachange #105
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
philerooski
force-pushed
the
snow-198-schemachange-securityadmin
branch
from
3f1351f to
7a85b00
Compare
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
From point 2 in this comment, we want to execute future grants within a versioned script.
We already have a database,
METADATA, which we use for managing the change history of account-level objects. Since future grants are grants on privileges which don't yet exist, we need to create them with a role which has theMANAGE GRANTSprivilege (i.e.,SECURITYADMIN).SECURITYADMINdoesn't yet have privileges to theMETADATA.SCHEMACHANGE.CHANGE_HISTORYtable. That's what this PR accomplishes.While the object we are granting future privileges on are database and schema-level objects, rather than account-level objects, I still think it makes sense to track changes to their future grants in
METADATAsince its the future grants themselves which behave like account-level objects, requiring the account-level privilegeMANAGE GRANTSto create.