From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Constantin Teodorescu" <teo(at)flex(dot)ro>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Ed Loehr" <eloehr(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Interfaces" <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [INTERFACES] A question on triggers |
Date: | 2000-02-19 15:15:29 |
Message-ID: | NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFMENLCCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of
> Constantin Teodorescu
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > But wouldn't be nice if PostgreSQL could offer a more elegant
> solution?
> >
> > Can't you do it with the normal GRANT/REVOKE access-control mechanism?
>
> No. It didn't worked, that was my first idea!
>
> > I'm pretty sure that for rules (views), the access rights for queries
> > issued within the rule are checked based on the owner of the rule, not
> > the user who invoked the rule. Triggers ought to work the same way,
> > though I haven't tried it. So you could make the trigger function and
> > the protected table owned by the same user, and then not grant write
> > permission on that table to anyone else.
>
> It seems it didn't work!
>
Hmm,it seems to work for views(rules) but it doesn't work for functions.
It should work for stored procedures,shouldn't it ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Del Signore | 2000-02-19 19:25:08 | JDBC - Numeric & Decimal handling in 6.5.3? |
Previous Message | Martin Kresse | 2000-02-18 23:31:05 | RE: [INTERFACES] NOTIFY/LISTEN with JDBC |