From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: [DOCS] Small clarification in "34.41. schemata") |
Date: | 2013-09-07 18:01:52 |
Message-ID: | 20130907180152.GF11757@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 03:49:36PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/9/13 8:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > However, it seems to me that this behavior is actually wrong for our
> > purposes, as it represents a too-literal reading of the spec. The SQL
> > standard has no concept of privileges on schemas, only ownership.
> > We do have privileges on schemas, so it seems to me that the consistent
> > thing would be for this view to show any schema that you either own or
> > have some privilege on. That is the test should be more like
> >
> > pg_has_role(n.nspowner, 'USAGE')
> > OR has_schema_privilege(n.oid, 'CREATE, USAGE')
> >
> > As things stand, a non-superuser won't see "public", "pg_catalog",
> > nor even "information_schema" itself in this view, which seems a
> > tad silly.
>
> I agree it would make sense to change this.
Is this the patch you want applied? The docs are fine?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
schemata.diff | text/x-diff | 942 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-09-10 02:27:26 | Re: Re: Privileges for INFORMATION_SCHEMA.SCHEMATA (was Re: [DOCS] Small clarification in "34.41. schemata") |
Previous Message | David Johnston | 2013-09-06 14:53:48 | Re: regexp_replace 'g' flag |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-09-07 18:22:54 | Re: [RFC] overflow checks optimized away |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-09-07 16:50:59 | Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans |