Re: AW: AW: Reimplementing permission checks for rules

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: AW: Reimplementing permission checks for rules
Date: 2000-10-12 14:36:52
Message-ID: 26026.971361412@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> I don't know, but imho one field for all permissions would have been
> better, like we discussed for the permissions system table, since
> there are more rights in SQL than read/write (e.g. write is separated
> into insert, update and delete)

Not really necessary in the current implementation. checkForWrite
essentially identifies the target table for the operation, and then
the query's commandType is used to decide exactly which flavor of
write access to check for.

IIRC, the ACL code doesn't have the right set of primitive access types
anyway to match the SQL spec's requirements, but that's a task for
another day.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-10-12 14:38:37 Re: AW: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-10-12 14:23:35 AW: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN