From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Lodewijk Voege" <lvoege(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: information_schema.referential_constraints permissions |
Date: | 2008-04-28 23:14:58 |
Message-ID: | 19206.1209424498@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
"Lodewijk Voege" <lvoege(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have some code that gets foreign key information from
> information_schema.referential_constraints. I was puzzled about why it wasn't
> returning anything for a while, until I read the information_schema.sql file
> and the documentation carefully: it has a pg_has_role(c.relowner, 'USAGE') in
> it and the documentation states "The view referential_constraints contains all
> referential integrity (foreign key) constraints in the current database that
> belong to a table owned by a currently enabled role".
> Fair enough. But then I read the public draft of SQL 2003 and 200n on this
> view, and it speaks only of "tables in this catalog that are accessible to a
> given user or role", rather than ownership. the user I was working with most
> definately had access.
The SQL committee changed that recently --- SQL92 and SQL99 define the
view as
Identify the referential constraints defined in this catalog that
are owned by a given user.
I don't think we've gotten around to trying to sync information_schema
with SQL2003. (The whole concept that information_schema might be a
moving target is pretty disturbing :-()
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2008-04-29 01:24:22 | Re: Truncate table at a certain size. |
Previous Message | Dana Huggard - Navarik | 2008-04-28 22:35:04 | Truncate table at a certain size. |