From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tal Walter <talw(at)sqreamtech(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wanting to learn about pgsql design decision |
Date: | 2016-08-02 16:43:42 |
Message-ID: | 87shungmwf.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> - Why to read from a table, both a usage permission on the schema
>> and a read access permission on the table is needed?
Tom> Because the SQL standard says so.
You'd think, but in fact it doesn't; the spec (at least 2008 and the
2011 drafts) has no concept of grantable permissions on schemas, and
ties table ownership and schema ownership together.
(See the definition of <privileges> to see that there's nothing there
for schemas, and the definition of <table definition> for the fact that
it's the schema owner who also owns the table and gets the initial
grants on it, and <drop table statement> and <alter table statement> to
confirm that only the schema owner can alter or drop the table. The
access rules for <table reference> only require permission on a table
column, no mention of schemas.)
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-08-02 16:51:16 | Re: pg_size_pretty, SHOW, and spaces |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-08-02 15:44:35 | PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |