From: | Ron Peterson <ron(dot)peterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)collaborativefusion(dot)com> |
Cc: | Furface <furface(at)omnicode(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Limit on number of users in postgresql? |
Date: | 2007-01-28 23:39:07 |
Message-ID: | 20070128233907.GA26983@yellowbank.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 01:21:09PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> The only thing that's missing is row-level granularity. There's at least
> one project out there supporting that, and you can also simulate it with
> clever usage of stored procedures and the ability to run them with the
> permissions of the definer instead of the executer.
You can also use rules to protect rows. E.g.
CREATE RULE atable__lock_user_insert
AS ON INSERT TO atable
WHERE
CURRENT_USER != 'mysuper'
AND
new.username != CURRENT_USER
DO INSTEAD nothing;
CREATE RULE atable__lock_user_update
AS ON UPDATE TO atable
WHERE
CURRENT_USER != 'mysuper'
AND
old.username != CURRENT_USER
DO INSTEAD nothing;
CREATE RULE atable__lock_user_delete
AS ON DELETE TO atable
WHERE
CURRENT_USER != 'mysuper'
AND
old.username != CURRENT_USER
DO INSTEAD nothing;
--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Harpreet Dhaliwal | 2007-01-29 00:45:21 | Re: PostgreSQL data loss |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-28 23:33:16 | Re: MULE_INTERNAL translation to win1250 |