| From: | Olleg Samoylov <olleg(at)mipt(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #1610: rewrite rule and sequence |
| Date: | 2005-04-22 06:33:10 |
| Message-ID: | 42689AA6.6080007@mipt.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-docs |
Richard Huxton wrote:
> That's not a bug, it's a feature (as they say). I suppose you could
> argue that a sequence only used by one table could inherit that
> table's permissions by default, but I can see problems when people
> reorder GRANT statements.
>
> HTH
It's not feature, it's bug. From postgresql documentation 33.4. Rules
and Privileges:
<quote> Relations that are used due to rules get checked against the
privileges of the rule owner, not the user invoking the rule. This means
that a user only needs the required privileges for the tables/views that
he names explicitly in his queries.</quote>
This dont' true for tables with serial fields.
--
Olleg Samoylov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2005-04-22 07:53:30 | Transactions and "create or replace function" |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-04-22 04:21:49 | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-04-22 08:03:17 | Rules and Permissions docs change (was Re: BUG #1610: rewrite rule and sequence) |
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-04-21 15:57:51 | Re: BUG #1610: rewrite rule and sequence |