From: | "Tony Marston" <tony(at)marston-home(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'Stephan Szabo'" <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible to owner |
Date: | 2005-10-09 19:12:07 |
Message-ID: | 000101c5cd05$5bdcba50$c800a8c0@ajmnotebook |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net]
> Sent: 09 October 2005 17:42
> To: Tony Marston
> Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org; 'Stephan Szabo'
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema
> only accessible to owner
>
>
> Tony Marston wrote:
> > I disagree. The function description in the SQL 1999 standard says
> > "Identify the columns of tables defined in this catalog that are
> > accessible to a given user." It is clear that the actual
> code sample
> > given does not conform to this description,
>
> First of all, the current implementation certainly
> "identifies" all the
> desired columns, because you can clearly get the "identity" of all
> columns from that view.
>
> Moreover, the functional description does not say anything about the
> details of the view, leaving that to the formal definition below. If
> we followed your reading of the standard, the view would simply give
> the names of the columns along with table and schema name and that's
> all.
I'm sure that if you actually implemented that interpretation you would get
more complaits than you could handle.
Tony Marston
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2005-10-09 23:11:43 | BUG #1950: Subroutine info cached in pl/perl |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2005-10-09 17:19:46 | Re: BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function |