From: | "Bertin, Philippe" <philippe(dot)bertin(at)barco(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com>, nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: IF- statements in a rule's 'DO INSTEAD SELECT ...'- statement |
Date: | 2002-05-07 06:34:12 |
Message-ID: | B9E404D03707D511BD4D00105A40C10466B590@wevmex01.barco.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alvaro, Hi Nigel,
Thanks for your reply. I indeed already tried with a plpgsql function. But
that's just my problem : if I call a function from within a view's rule,
this function is not executed anymore with the same rights as a user had on
the view. So if a user may access a view, but not the table behind, calling
a function in the DO INSTEAD- clause will not execute the function with the
proper (view) rights on the table ...
(to all) Could anyone - (developers, eventually ?) explain me why the
(security) context of a function call is not passed along when the function
gets called from within a view ? I think this feature is for sure not
superfluous, and I could consider having a look into the code to have this
changed (but I think this is a VERY big pile of source codes I never ever
looked at before, so this would take a lot of efforts ... for me)
Kind regards,
Philippe Bertin.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Paul ARGUDO | 2002-05-07 07:46:18 | Re: [DOCS] Migrating Oracle to PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tille, Andreas | 2002-05-07 05:55:34 | Allow user to create tables |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-05-07 10:33:41 | Re: Schemas: status report, call for developers |
Previous Message | Mark kirkwood | 2002-05-07 06:20:51 | Unbounded (Possibly) Database Size Increase - Test Case |