| 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: | 2009-02-03 03:27:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20090203032707.GQ8123@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, all,
In the attached patch-
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> * Some of the information_schema views are specified to respond to
> per-column privileges; the column_privileges and columns views
> certainly need work now to meet spec, and there might be others.
Done.
> * It might be appropriate to let the pg_stats view expose stats for
> columns you have select privilege for, even if you haven't got it
> across the whole table.
Done.
> * We probably ought to invent has_column_privilege SQL functions
> analogous to has_table_privilege; this is not just for completeness,
> but is probably necessary to finish the above items.
Done.
> * ISTM that COPY with a column list should succeed if you have
> SELECT or INSERT privilege on just the mentioned columns.
Done.
> * Perhaps it would be appropriate to let LOCK TABLE succeed if you have
> proper permissions on at least one column of the table. However, it's
> bad enough that LOCK TABLE examines permissions before locking the table
> now; I don't think it ought to be grovelling through the columns without
> lock. So this might be a place to leave well enough alone.
Left alone.
Thanks,
Stephen
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| colprivs_cleanup_2008020201.diff | text/x-diff | 44.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2009-02-03 03:32:36 | Re: add_path optimization |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-03 03:26:24 | Re: add_path optimization |