| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: security label support, part.2 |
| Date: | 2010-08-22 19:18:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1282504685.13679.6.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 15:08 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> > I think there are perfectly good reasons to have different permissions
> > on parent and child tables. I don't see any reason to monkey around
> > with that.
>
> Even though the permissions on the child table aren't invovled at all if
> queried through the parent..? The parent implicitly adds to the set of
> privileges which are granted on the child, but that's not clear at all
> from the permissions visible on the child. That's principally what I'm
> complaining about here.
Perhaps this is a user interface issue then. Maybe the fact that a
table is inherited from another one needs to be shown closer to
whereever the permissions are listed.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-08-22 19:24:53 | Re: security label support, part.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-22 19:15:04 | Re: UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding |