Re: Problem with function permission test in a view

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Someone asked me a question about view and function permissions. I
> > assumed all object access done by a view would be based on the
> > permissions on the view, and not the permissions of the objects.
>
> Table references are checked according to the owner of the view, but use
> in a view does not change the execution context for function or operator
> calls. This is how it's always been done.
>
> > Is this a bug?
>
> Changing it would be a major definitional change (and a pretty major
> implementation change too). It might be better, but please don't
> pre-judge the issue by labeling it a bug.

Well, it sure sounds like a bug. What logic is there that table access
use the view permissions, but not function access? Could we just use
SECURITY DEFINER for function calls in views?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073