| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org (The Hermit Hacker) |
| Cc: | Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |
| Date: | 1998-02-19 19:13:30 |
| Message-ID: | 199802191913.OAA11383@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Just curious, but why don't the copy command fall under the same
> grant/revoke restrictions in the first place? It sounds to me like we are
> backing off of the problem instead of addressing it...
grant/revoke works for copy.
>
> The problem being that it appears that 'copy' overrides/ignores
> the rewrite rules, which kind of invalidates having them, doesn't it?
> What would it take to have copy follow them as select does?
Hard, because COPY does not do joins and does not go through the
optimizer and executor. It dumps single tables. Tough to yank that
through rewrite.
--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-02-19 19:21:45 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1998-02-19 19:02:23 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Solution to the pg_user passwd problem !?? (c) |