## postgresql – Postgres role permission issue

I have a role called `readwrite`, created by a user called `postgres`. This role has the following subsidies applied:

``````GRANT CONNECT ON DATABASE confere TO readwrite;
GRANT USAGE, CREATE ON SCHEMA airflow_staging TO readwrite;
GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON ALL TABLES IN SCHEMA airflow_staging TO readwrite;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA airflow_staging GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON TABLES TO readwrite;
GRANT USAGE ON ALL SEQUENCES IN SCHEMA airflow_staging TO readwrite;
ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES IN SCHEMA airflow_staging GRANT USAGE ON SEQUENCES TO readwrite;
``````

After that I created a user called `confere` and assigned it to `readwrite` paper:

``````create user confere with password '...'
``````

When i run a `create table` statement with `postgres` user, `confere` select it without any problem:

``````--as postgres
create table airflow_staging.test (a text)

--as confere
select * from airflow_staging.test
a|
-|
``````

But when I create a table with `confere` user, `postgres` You can't see your content because you get an error from the owner:

``````--as confere
create table airflow_staging.test_2 (a text)

--as postgres
select * from airflow_staging.test_2
SQL Error (42501): ERROR: permission denied for table teste_2
``````

Why? Is there any way to `postgres` user to see tables created by `confere`?

Obs .: This is not a PostgreSQL superuser, I am running Google Cloud SQL and Postgres 11

## Game recommendation: is there a role system that does not require a DM to narrate the adventure?

YES

I found some games / systems that might interest you:

• Fiasco
• The quiet year
• Deep forest
• Crooked dream
• Dream apart
• Microscope
• Follow
• Kingdom
• Questlandia
• Noirlandia
• Mobile Frame Zero: Firebrands
• Layers
• polar Star
• Ironsworn
• Mythical GM Emulator
• Amber without dice
• Field work
• White papers
• Goblin Quest
• Carolina Death Craw
• Durance
• Warhammer Quest board game
• The Cue system (Cosmic Patrol, Valiant, Shadowrun Anarchy)

## Product identification: what is the role play about a trip from A to B, with examples of French soldiers who will kill Hitler and a team trying to win a television racing contest?

There is this role play that is about a group of people trying to get from point A to point B.

The two example scenarios that are the basis for all the examples in the manual are French soldiers going to Berlin to kill Hitler and boys on a television show that need to get to point B to win a prize before a team of Hunters catch them.

If I am not mixing two different games, the main mechanics of the game is to throw dice from a certain distance to a target that lies on a table. Rolling out of the target (too long or too short) or throwing the stack of stacked dice in the center of the target means failure.

## Podcasting: How do I allow the user with a contributing role to upload audio to a publication or publication?

I have problems so that the user can load an audio or a podcast in an entry. I have to do this without using an add-on because we are not going to crawl the website.
My question is, how can I do it so that the user with a contributing role can load an audio or a podcast in an entry without using add-ons?

## co.combinatorics – Possible supervision in the role of Greene and Kleitman on chains in order of domination in partitions?

This question is about a possible loophole in a role of Greene and Kleitman that Zarathustra Brady let me know.

The article in question is "Longer chains in the network of entire partitions sorted by wholesale" (available online here). In that document, they calculate the length of the longest chain in the order of dominance in the partitions and, in general, give an algorithm to find the longest chain in any interval of order of domination.

In order of domination we have a coverage relationship $$lambda gtrdot mu$$ If and only if $$mu$$ is obtained from $$lambda$$ moving a single box in a row $$i$$ row $$i + 1$$or moving a single frame in the column $$i + 1$$ to the column $$i$$. In the first case, Greene and Kleitman say that $$lambda gtrdot mu$$ is a Step h (Because, perhaps confusingly for modern readers, the box moved a unit horizontally according to its non-standard scheme of drawing partitions with vertical parts, see Figure 2), and in the second case they say that $$lambda gtrdot mu$$ is a V step (because the box moved a unit vertically according to its representation). Keep in mind, as the authors point out, that it is possible that $$lambda gtrdot mu$$ it is both a step H and a step V (and in fact this is the source of the possible lagoon!).

Greene and Kleitman say a chain $$lambda ^ 0> lambda ^ 1> cdots> lambda ^ L$$ is a H string yes every step $$lambda ^ i> lambda ^ i + 1} = lambda ^ i gtrdot lambda ^ i + 1}$$ it's a step H, and similarly say that the chain is a V string yes every step $$lambda ^ i> lambda ^ i + 1} = lambda ^ i gtrdot lambda ^ i + 1}$$ It's a step in V. Also, they say $$lambda ^ 0> lambda ^ 1> cdots> lambda ^ L$$ is a HV chain if there is any index $$i$$ such that $$lambda ^ 0> cdots> lambda ^ i$$ it's an H chain and $$lambda ^ i> cdots> lambda ^ L$$ It is a V chain.

In a crucial motto of the article, Lemma 3, they affirm that if $$lambda = lambda ^ 0> lambda ^ 1> cdots> lambda ^ L = mu$$ is any chain in order of domination, then there is some HV chain between $$lambda$$ and $$mu$$ in length at least $$L$$. The argument they give is: we can assume that each step in the chain is a hedging relationship; we assure that it is true for the chains $$lambda_0> lambda_1> lambda_2$$ of length 2; then, by repeatedly applying this case of length 2 we can convert any length string $$L$$ to an HV chain of at least length $$L$$.

But this last point about the repeated application of the case of length 2 seems suspicious, for the following reason. Suppose we have a chain of length 3 $$lambda_0> lambda_1> lambda_2> lambda_3$$ such that $$lambda_0> lambda_1$$ it's a V step that is not an H step, $$lambda_1> lambda_2$$ it's a step V and H, and $$lambda_2> lambda_3$$ it is a step H that is not a step V. (This situation may arise: $$(5,4,3,2)> (4,4,4,2)> (4,4,3,3)> (4,4,3,2,1)$$.) Then the problem is that, from the perspective of substrings of length 2, things look good: $$lambda_0> lambda_1> lambda_2$$ it is a V chain, so it is in particular an HV chain; Similary $$lambda_1> lambda_2> lambda_3$$ it is an H chain, so in particular it is an HV chain. But $$lambda_0> lambda_1> lambda_2> lambda_3$$ It is obviously not an HV chain.

Question: Is this a real oversight in the role of Greene-Kleitman? If so, is Lemma 3 true, and can the test be repaired?

## dnd 5e: How to deal with a player who prioritizes combat over role play in a heavy role-playing campaign?

You say everyone agreed with this in session 0, which is great. This means that everyone knew what you wanted, got on board and apparently also wanted that thing. I've had one of these people before and the key is to find out what For real want. They agreed to a heavy role-playing campaign, but you may want to push them aside and ask why they are so focused on combat. Do you still grant XP exclusively through combat? If so, you may want to consider changing that. The player may be fine with a heavy role-playing game, but what he really wants is to participate in the game's reward structures. Magic items, XP, that kind of thing.

## But what if they just want to kill?

Well, if you are thirsty for blood for good (or for the use of the other 85% of the rules of the game) you will have to have a different conversation. If this pressure from players to kill things is causing the rest of the players (the DM is also a player) to have less fun, you will have to seriously consider that this player may not fit well with your current campaign idea. Sometimes that happens, but it's fine. If they are adults, they will realize what they have done wrong and agree to wait for the next campaign that contains more fighting, or they will change so that everyone can have fun equally during the current campaign.

## TL; DR

All in all, it's still about talking to them. You have to find out what they really want and decide if you can accommodate them or make them wait until the next campaign.

## dnd 5e: How to deal with a minimum / maximum player who prioritizes combat over role play in a heavy role-playing campaign?

You say everyone agreed with this in session 0, which is great. This means that everyone knew what you wanted, got on board and apparently also wanted that thing. I've had one of these people before and the key is to find out what For real want. They agreed to a heavy role-playing campaign, but you may want to push them aside and ask why they are so focused on combat. Do you still grant XP exclusively through combat? If so, you may want to consider changing that. The player may be fine with a heavy role-playing game, but what he really wants is to participate in the game's reward structures. Magic items, XP, that kind of thing.

## But what if they just want to kill?

Well, if you are thirsty for blood for good (or for the use of the other 85% of the rules of the game) you will have to have a different conversation. If this pressure from players to kill things is causing the rest of the players (the DM is also a player) to have less fun, you will have to seriously consider that this player may not fit well with your current campaign idea. Sometimes that happens, but it's fine. If they are adults, they will realize what they have done wrong and agree to wait for the next campaign that contains more fighting, or they will change so that everyone can have fun equally during the current campaign.

## TL; DR

All in all, it's still about talking to them. You have to find out what they really want and decide if you can accommodate them or make them wait until the next campaign.

## Buddypress xprofile + role record

I am registering buddypress through a form. The code adds the role store manager but it doesn't work to show the xprofiles profile.
Could you help me? Thank you very much!

``````add_action('quform_post_process_7', function (array \$result, Quform_Form \$form) {
if (function_exists('bp_core_signup_user')) {
\$email = \$form->getValueText('quform_7_6');

// XProfile fields
\$usermeta = array(

'field_1' => \$form->getValueText('quform_7_10'),
'field_43' => \$form->getValueText('quform_7_6'),
'field_44' => \$form->getValueText('quform_7_20'),

);

\$usermeta('profile_field_ids') = '1,43,44';

\$data = array('ID' => \$new_user,
'role' => 'shop_manager',

);
wp_update_user(\$data);
update_user_meta( \$user->ID, 'test', \$usermeta );
}

return \$result;
}, 10, 2);
``````

## Bitcoin 51% mining attack: question about the role of user-activated soft forks as a defense tactic

A soft fork describes a situation in which the network consensus rules harden: in simple terms, something that was allowed before is no longer allowed.

After a gentle fork, the old nodes will remain part of the network, even if they are not aware of this rule setting. However, miners must create blocks according to the new rules, otherwise, the nodes that execute the new code will ignore their blocks.

The term "user-activated soft fork" refers more specifically to a soft fork initiated by nodes, rather than miners.

With that in mind, a soft fork activated by the user cannot protect against a 51% attack, because there is no way to adjust the rules that would exclude a single miner from being able to create blocks. A valid block does not require identification information of the miner, it is simply seen by the network as valid or invalid.

The proof of work is the method by which the history of the network is ensured. If this method fails, it is not clear how network nodes could coordinate to continue honestly. Some people have suggested switching to a different proof of work algorithm, but if an attacker can get enough resources to escape the entire honest network of SHA256 miners, I'm not sure I see any reason why they can't do the same for Him. Next algorithm too.

Forking to a different consensus algorithm (that is, no proof of work) is another option, but I have not yet seen an algorithm that provides the same security and economic guarantees as the proof of work, so this option has a little future Of course at best. Such a change would probably require a hard fork to run cleanly anyway, so it seems to be beyond the scope of this question.