| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Triggers with DO functionality |
| Date: | 2012-02-24 20:01:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAFNqd5Wwt78X46UB7pj7snNBxayhvXqhyG5xM9QF__-+AP2NSw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> By default, a trigger function runs as the table owner, ie it's
> implicitly SEC DEF
>> to the table owner.
>
> Really? That's certainly what I would *want*, but it's not what I've
> seen.
Yeah, not quite consistent with what I've seen.
And it's not obvious that it truly is what you want. An audit trigger
would need to run as the *audit table* owner, which might not be the
same as the user that owns the table on which the trigger fires.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | amit sehas | 2012-02-24 20:45:41 | Behavior of subselects in target lists and order by |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-02-24 19:55:01 | Re: Triggers with DO functionality |