Re: Wanting to learn about pgsql design decision

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)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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