| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Ilir Gashi <I(dot)Gashi(at)city(dot)ac(dot)uk>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Grant Update (Possible bug)? |
| Date: | 2004-07-02 17:02:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20040702170256.GT21419@ns.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > According to the letter of the SQL standard, this behavior is not conforming.
> > But PostgreSQL enforces that you need SELECT privilege for columns that you
> > read for the purpose of performing an UPDATE.
>
> Why do you think it's non-conformant? AFAICS SQL92 section 6.4 <column
> reference> Access Rule 1(a) requires exactly this behavior.
>
> I notice that Annex E item 5 points this out as an incompatibility with
> SQL89 ... maybe Oracle is still on SQL89 ...
It would seem reasonable, then, that a grant of update privilege would
imply a grant of select privilege. Currently this isn't the case.
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Edoardo Ceccarelli | 2004-07-02 18:50:26 | finding a max value |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-02 16:52:42 | Re: Grant Update (Possible bug)? |