From: | "Lodewijk Voege" <lvoege(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | information_schema.referential_constraints permissions |
Date: | 2008-04-28 21:47:59 |
Message-ID: | 2d734e2f0804281447l5de57868na1a5415b0a95ee28@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
hello,
I have some code that gets foreign key information from
information_schema.referential_constraints. I was puzzled about why it wasn't
returning anything for a while, until I read the information_schema.sql file
and the documentation carefully: it has a pg_has_role(c.relowner, 'USAGE') in
it and the documentation states "The view referential_constraints contains all
referential integrity (foreign key) constraints in the current database that
belong to a table owned by a currently enabled role".
Fair enough. But then I read the public draft of SQL 2003 and 200n on this
view, and it speaks only of "tables in this catalog that are accessible to a
given user or role", rather than ownership. the user I was working with most
definately had access. it could also read the pg_* system catalog, such that
if I copy/paste the view definition without the pg_has_role() line in it (and
massage it a bit to remove the CASTs to sql_identifier and character_data)
that user got just what I was expecting.
so, is that restriction correct?
Lodewijk
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nacef LABIDI | 2008-04-28 22:33:44 | currval of sequence "my_seq" is not yet defined in this session |
Previous Message | chester c young | 2008-04-28 17:01:37 | Re: psql: no schema info |