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> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema only accessible to owner |
Date: | 2005-10-09 10:05:42 |
Message-ID: | 000201c5ccb9$10db9810$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: 08 October 2005 14:09
> To: Tony Marston
> Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #1937: Parts of information_schema
> only accessible to owner
>
>
> Please copy replies to the mailing list.
>
> Tony Marston wrote:
> > I have searched through the SQL 2003 standard and can find no such
> > restriction. In the volume titled "Information and
> Definition Schemas
> > (SQL/Schemata)" in section 5.20 (INORMATON_SCHEMA.COLUMNS view) it
> > states the following under the heading "Function":
> >
> > "Identify the columns of tables defined in this catalog that are
> > accessible to a given user or role."
>
> The information schema currently follows SQL 1999.
> Interestingly, the
> requirement to "blank out" the column defaults of non-owned
> tables was
> apparently dropped in SQL 2003. Clearly, we need to review the
> information schema for SQL 2003 conformance.
In the mean time I have amended my version of the INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS
view to conform to the 2003 standard, so this is now a non-problem for me. I
just thought that I should bring this discrepancy between the 1999 and 2003
standards to your attention.
Tony Marston
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-10-09 16:32:56 | Re: BUG #1949: Inserting Unicode hindi numbers |
Previous Message | Tony Marston | 2005-10-09 10:05:41 | Re: BUG #1947: Enhancement Request - CONCAT() function |