| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Column-Level Privileges |
| Date: | 2009-01-20 19:08:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20090120190832.GC32428@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> ... btw, what is the reasoning behind the special cases for SELECT FOR
> UPDATE in execMain.c?
Basically, because the original logic allowed SELECT-FOR-UPDATE if you
only had SELECT rights, which wasn't right.
> If there actually is a need to treat SELECT FOR UPDATE specially, then
> this code is quite wrong because it will also fire on a plain UPDATE
> (assuming the UPDATE reads any existing column values, which it usually
> would). Offhand though I don't see why we can't just use code that is
> symmetric with the SELECT case: if requiredPerms includes UPDATE but
> there are no columns called out for UPDATE, then allow it if we have
> UPDATE on any column.
I agree, this makes alot more sense to me.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-20 19:31:03 | Re: Hot standby, RestoreBkpBlocks and cleanup locks |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-20 19:01:58 | Re: Hot standby, RestoreBkpBlocks and cleanup locks |