| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: security label support, part.2 |
| Date: | 2010-08-22 19:08:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20100822190808.GK26232@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Peter Eisentraut (peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net) wrote:
> I think there are perfectly good reasons to have different permissions
> on parent and child tables. I don't see any reason to monkey around
> with that.
Even though the permissions on the child table aren't invovled at all if
queried through the parent..? The parent implicitly adds to the set of
privileges which are granted on the child, but that's not clear at all
from the permissions visible on the child. That's principally what I'm
complaining about here.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-08-22 19:12:44 | Re: UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-22 18:29:20 | UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding |