| From: | "Joe Conway" <joe(at)conway-family(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal |
| Date: | 2001-06-06 21:45:57 |
| Message-ID: | 005e01c0eed2$1248d600$dad410ac@jecw2k1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> where the semantics are that an entire tuple of the relation "rel" is
> passed to the function. This doesn't really gain us anything for the
> problem at hand (and we'll quite likely have to give it up anyway when
> we implement schemas, since SQL has very different ideas about what
> a.b.c means than our current parser does).
>
I wasn't quite sure if there are changes I can/should make to
has_table_privilege based on this discussion. Is there any action for me on
this (other than finishing the regression test and creating documentation
patches)?
Thanks,
-- Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Pilosov | 2001-06-06 21:58:52 | Re: [HACKERS] something smells bad |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-06 21:26:44 | Re: Idea: quicker abort after loss of client connection |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-06 22:10:00 | Re: Re: [PATCHES] Fw: Isn't pg_statistic a security hole - Solution Proposal |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-06 21:15:40 | Finalize large object patch |